Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Death of a Member

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right hon. Maurice Victor Macmillan, Member for Surrey, South-West, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Combined Heat and Power Schemes

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has completed his study of the consultant's report on combined heat and power and district heating schemes; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Wallace: I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement shortly, but we hope that it will be in the very near future, not some distant future. Does he agree that if combined heat and power schemes are to be successful they will require the Government'

enthusiastic backing and a guarantee against risks? Does he accept that if the feet-dragging is prolonged much further it could prejudice the success of any schemes that are brought to fruition?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is n˙ question of dragging feet. The Government are committed to the idea. We have already spent over £900,000 on feasibility studies which raise many issues which we are studying thoroughly. As soon as we come to a conclusion we shall make an announcement, which I hope will be shortly.

Mr. Rost: Has my right hon. Friend studied the various independent assessments, including energy paper No. 52 by the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, saying that the purchase of more high-cost Norwegian gas would be a less cost-effective supply option than investing in Leeds city combined heat and power using coal as a base, apart from the savings on our balance of payments? Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider those alternative options, as compared with the other supply options which might well pre-empt them?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I take note of my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Minister accept that, apart from the full-hearted co-operation of the Government, it is necessary to secure the full-hearted co-operation of the councils involved? Is he aware that the Newcastle upon Tyne council is extremely keen to take up the scheme as soon as possible?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are grateful for the support that we have received, particularly in the preparation of the feasibility studies. We shall take it into account in our final assessment.

Sleipner Gas

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss the importation of Sleipner gas.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have regular meetings with the chairman of


British Gas. Possible sources of new gas supplies, such as those on offer from the Norwegian Sleipner field, are kept under review.

Mr. Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that the purchase of high-price Norwegian gas will delay the development of United Kingdom sector gasfields, with the inevitably adverse effect that that will have on onshore and offshore employment, as well as about the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) about CHP? If he allows the Sleipner transaction to go ahead, will he ensure that gas exports will be permitted from the United Kingdom sector?

Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friend that in whatever decisions are taken in this connection careful consideration will be given to the importance of maintaining progress in developing our own offshore facilities.

Mr. Bruce: I am glad that the Minister has explained the position, but will he confirm the report that his Department is recommending that British Gas should import gas from the Dutch sector, instead of going ahead with the Sleipner deal? Will he also acknowledge that, if that is so, it is a recognition that Sleipner gas would so distort the British market as to cause considerable uncertainty for future supplies from the United Kingdom sector?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. However, I can confirm that the British Gas Corporation has spoken to the Dutch and Norwegians and also to suppliers of gas in our North sea fields, and that it has taken all three potentialities into consideration in coming to whatever conclusions it reaches.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Has not the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act encouraged exploration in the southern basin of the North sea where the gas is? If so, has my right hon. Friend any idea of how long it will be before we are self-sufficient again in gas supplies?

Mr. Walker: In any projections for the 1990s, Britain will continue, as now, to be a net importer of gas.

Mr. Rowlands: Did not the Secretary of State, in answer to previous questions on energy, draw attention to the value and importance of Sleipner gas as part of a long-term depletion policy? Is there an application before the right hon. Gentleman? What procedure will now be followed to decide whether he will authorise that arrangement with the Norwegian authorities?

Mr. Walker: The Norwegians and the Dutch have made certain offers to the BGC. We are examining those, as we are examining other alternatives, and we shall then come to a conclusion.

National Coal Board

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the National Coal Board; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. McKay: Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman of the NCB the statement by the previous chairman, Sir Norman Siddall, concerning the softly,

softly approach towards colliery closures and the coal industry in general? Does the right hon. Gentleman not now realise that on the appointment of Ian Macgregor Labour Members were correct to say that there were far better potential chairmen within the NCB's management?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a chairman of the NCB who has kept up a massive investment in the coal industry, who has recently persuaded the Government to put £400 million into the development of Asfordby, and who has seen to it that at pits that have been closed all the miners had the option of either alternative jobs or early retirement, which many have taken.

Sir John Osborn: Did not the chairman of the NCB have a similar experience in the steel industry to that which he is now facing? Will my right hon. Friend urge him to give Mr. Arthur Scargill the same advice as he gave to the leaders of the steel workers union—to go slowly or put many coal miners out of work, with uncompetitive pits?

Mr. Walker: Mr. Macgregor has endeavoured to improve Britain's potential in other markets. I am glad to say that, whereas when the Government took office in 1979 we were a net importer of coal, we are now a net exporter. The one Socialist Government in Europe — France— having promised the miners that they would substantially increase coal production, have now decided to get rid of half the miners in France.

Mr. Lofthouse: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the fact that by the turn of the century the BGC expects to be needing about 90 million tonnes of coal? Did he discuss his plans for investment to provide that coal?

Mr. Walker: I have heard no suggestion from the BGC that it will need 90 million tonnes of coal at that time. That is not in any projection that I have received from the BGC.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the chairman of the NCB came off what, bluntly, has become an almost softly, softly approach? We cannot go on putting £800 million a year into new investments if it is to be swallowed up in continually loss-making mines which, in the end, will ruin the industry and the taxpayer.

Mr. Walker: The important point is that we have made the massive investment necessary to have good, economic pits. That is happening under this Government to a greater degree than it did under the previous Government. We must go about the closure of uneconomic pits in a sensible and civilised way, which is just what we are doing.

Mr. Skinner: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if he can say that it is right and proper to give tax relief to uneconomical marginal oilfields, and if it is right and proper to give additional subsidies to hill farms—marginal agriculture—in order to maximise their efficiency, it must surely be right to ensure that marginal uneconomic pits get the same sort of aid in order to make sure that we have energy when oil has run out?

Mr. Walker: Not at all. The big difference between the tax position of the oil companies and the NCB is that the NCB is not taxed, because it makes only losses. Taxes on the oil industry are running at more than 80 per cent. Obviously, I should be delighted if the coal industry made profits that we could tax at 80 per cent. The hon.


Gentleman must face the reality that the Government are investing much more in the coal industry's future than did the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Burt: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the division and disunity in the coalfields today, when more than half the mines are working, is a sure sign that the miners have grasped the message of the Government's commitment to and investment in the coal industry and recognise that the real mischief in this situation lies not with the Government, but with the present miners leaders who seek to threaten the industry's future?

Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that many miners are well aware of the massive capital investment that the Government are putting into the mining industry. They are also well aware of the very generous terms that we have offered to those miners now over the age of 50 who have been affected by potential closures. They are aware of both those facts. I think that the events today certainly show that the miners would like the opportunity of a secret ballot to express their view.

Mr. Orme: Because of the present serious situation in the coalfields, has the Secretary of State been in touch with both sides of industry over the weekend? Does he not think that he ought now to intervene and bring both sides together? Does he not think that the MacGregor plan should be put on one side while meaningful discussions take place, and that it is his responsibility to bring the two sides together as soon as possible?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. Last week both sides of the industry met. They decided that they would prepare a number of suggestions so that they could collectively come to me and express those views. As always, if both sides of the industry wish to come to me with certain aspects of their policy, I shall be only to pleased to see them and to discuss the matter with them. Certainly I shall not intervene in what is basically the clear-cut management position of a management that wishes to invest more in economic mines, cut out the burden of the uneconomic mines, and do it in a civilised and generous way.

Coal Imports

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he now has figures for the total amount of coal imported in 1983 and the country of origin.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): The United Kingdom imported only 4 per cent. of its coal requirements in 1983. The majority of the coal imported, some 70 per cent., came from Australia and the United States.

Mr. Powell: Is the Minister aware that, although imports amounted to only 4 per cent., that coal might have saved three of the collieries that have been closed in my constituency since 1979? Is he aware that that coal might also have been mined in a new pit in Margam, if the Government should decide that it should go ahead? Will the Minister tell me also whether Ian MacGregor has any direct or indirect personal interest in any of the countries from which we are importing coal?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman's last point is scarcely worth answering. He should fully understand that the chairman of the National Coal Board is doing everything in his power to increase exports of British-mined coal. As

to the hon. Gentleman's other point, he will know better than I that, in the continuing shortage of certain special coals, including anthracite, there is indeed a market for imported coal. However, the long-term intention must be to develop coal at a price that will satisfy the market, and the Central Electricity Generating Board has guaranteed to take 95 per cent. of its requirement from the NCB for the next few years.

Mr. Favell: Has the Minister had an opportunity of discussing the recent statement by the chairman of the CEGB that, if he could import his total requirement of coal, it would reduce electricity prices by 15 per cent? When he takes that opportunity, will he tell the NCB what effect that would have on this country's industry and in particular, jobs in other industries?

Mr. Shaw: I take note of my hon. Friend's comment, and I am, indeed, aware of the comment of the chairman of the CEGB. However, the chairman is committing the CEGB to take 95 per cent. of its required volume from British sources.

Coal Industry (Overtime Ban)

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the overtime ban currently imposed by the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Peter Walker: The effect of the ban, which has now entered its 20th week, is most severe or, those imposing it: by 2 March miners had lost £69·3 million, the equivalent of more than two weeks' wages for every man in the industry.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. Friend understand that he has complete support on these Benches for his earlier answer in which he indicated that he would not interfere in management decisions —decisions which, in the present situation, are based on a circumstance in which, through the back door, the NUM leadership is trying to secure a national strike in respect of which it is not prepared to ballot its own membership?

Mr. Walker: I note my hon. Friend's views. The potential of this industry, modernised and without the burden of the uneconomic pits, is such that it will be an industry very much to the benefit of the miners.

Mr. Eadie: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the Select Committee on Energy, which illustrates that, despite Mr. MacGregor's statements to the nation that everything is going well, under his chairmanship the NCB will probably lose about £204 million? Why is it that the only person who seems to support Mr. MacGregor is the Prime Minister? Will the Secretary of State come clean and admit that MacGregor is a disaster and has plunged the industry into conflict?

Mr. Walker: Contrary to being a disaster, Mr. MacGregor is of great benefit to the future of the mining industry in Britain—[Interruption.] What is disastrous is the pretence that it is the interests of the miners to keep uneconomic pits and not develop economic ones.

Mr. Yeo: Despite the remarks in the House last week by the newly-elected right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), does my right hon. Friend agree that there is one person in Britain from whom the British coal industry


needs to be saved, that person being Mr. Arthur Scargill? Does he further agree that in that process of salvation we are more likely to have the support of members of the NUM than of members of the Opposition?

Mr. Walker: It is not for me to comment on the activities of any union leader, though one other person from whom the industry needs to be safeguarded is the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

Mr. Orme: When was the Secretary of State informed that the NCB had lost £135 million? As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made plain, the position was made clear in the Select Committee's report. Therefore, has not Mr. MacGregor got it wrong, and should not the Secretary of State take a fresh look at the situation and withdraw the MacGregor plan while he is doing that?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that the lost £135 million is, in reality, a loss of the stocks of coal at pitheads, which will not be as large as they would otherwise have been. As they are already on a massive scale, it is no great problem for the NCB. As the Select Committee report showed, the cash flow of the NCB has improved, not deteriorated.

Offshore Supplies Office

Mr. Malone: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations have recently been made to his Department regarding the operation of the Offshore Supplies Office.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Representations from a wide range of organisations and individuals are a regular feature of the Department's business.

Mr. Malone: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the healthy looking figure issued by the Offshore Supplies Office of 70 per cent. plus involvement by British industry in the North sea, the true figure for wholly-owned British companies is about only 40 per cent. and that that does not tend to be in high technology matters? Will his Department take steps to ensure that wholly-owned British companies will benefit during the next round of investment in the North sea of £50 billion to £60 billion.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The 40 per cent. to which my hon. Friend refers is a conjectural figure. The important point to remember is that the estimates of the Offshore Supplies Office are based on firms that are making a direct contribution to the United Kingdom economy, which is the correct basis on which to assess the position. As for the type of activity, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend that we want to see it taking place in high technology, and he need not go much further than his constituency to see many examples of wholly British firms which are at the forefront of development in the North sea.

Mr. Rowlands: Is it not a fact that, despite the figure of 70 per cent. in general terms, on the exploration side we have a very disappointing share of the export market? What efforts are the Government and the Offshore Supplies Office making to improve that percentage?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am extremely disappointed with matters on the drilling side, but there are a number of historic reasons for that. There was high British activity at one point but for a number of reasons, that declined.

That is why I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the efforts of the Government to keep open Scott Lithgow, which is one means of maintaining a high capability of building drilling rigs in the future.

Coal Industry (Investment)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to discuss investment with the chairman of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Patchett: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will discuss investment in the industry during his next meeting with the chairman of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the chairman regularly to discuss all aspects of the industry.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Secretary of State have an early meeting with the chairman of the board on the subject of my question? Is he aware that the level of investment is at the heart of the present difficulties of the coal industry? As we are constantly told that about £2 million a day is invested in the coal industry, may I ask the right hon. Gentlemen to comment on three aspects of the issue? First, does he agree that it is the lowest investment per tonne produced in the EEC; secondly, does he agree that it is about half the subsidy paid to British agriculture; and thirdly, does he accept that it does not even begin to meet the social consequences of pit closures in mining communities?

Mr. Walker: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has his figures wrong. He is mixing the totality of financing for the industry with the figure of £2 million a day, which is purely capital investment in the coal industry. In less than five years while this Government have been in office we have invested £3·5 billion in capital investment in the coal industry. Britain compares favourably with, for example, France, which has just announced that it will halve the size of its coal industry.

Mr. Patchett: Does the Secretary of State agree with Sir Norman Siddall's recent statement on the massive task of returning the industry to profitability within three years? Is it correct that the present management's attitude is hindering rather than helping the position?

Mr. Walker: The number of closures during the past year and the many difficulties that that has created is low compared with the average number of closures during the office of past Labour Governments. Closures in the coal mines have been a regular feature of the industry. During 11 years of Labour Government, more than 300 pit closures occurred. In nine years of Conservative Government, 92 pit closures occurred.

Mr. Skeet: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the past 10 years we have spent £7 billion on the mines, which is equivalent to receipts in taxation in one year from the North sea? Is there not a limit to the capital expenditure and other social benefits which may be granted?

Mr. Walker: It is vital for this country to have a strong and successful coal industry which continues well into the next century. That is why Mr. Ian MacGregor has been correct in continuing with a high level of capital investment and proceeding in a civilised way with the closure of uneconomic pits.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are scandalised that this year the Coal Board will lose £1,114 million, to which is to be added another £700 million or £800 million in investment in the industry? We should accelerate the pit closure programme to take account of the appalling blood-letting and haemorrhaging on British industry?

Mr. Walker: It is important that we maintain a successful coal industry for the future. It is important also that we close uneconomic pits, but that that should be done in a civilised and generous way. Many of those pits involve whole communities, and there are considerable difficulties. When pits become uneconomic on that basis or scale, the House should show understanding of the problems. Mr. Ian MacGregor and the National Coal Board are doing just that.

Mr. Barron: In view of the Secretary of State's statements just now about investment, will he tell the House and the British public how many new pits have been given permission to be opened since May 1979?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I can give the details of very substantial investment in existing pits. I refer to the enormous development at Selby and the recent announcement of £400 million investment in one pit in Asfordby.

Mr. Eggar: Would we not have a much more efficient coal industry if the National Union of Mineworkers stuck by its part of "Plan for Coal", which envisaged closures at a speedier rate than has happened?

Mr. Walker: In three features of "Plan for Coal" the Government have more than exceeded the promises on investment. The two unsuccessful factors have been productivity, which was estimated to increase by 4 per cent. a year and in fact was 4·9 per cent. over 10 years, and the closure rate, which was to have been between 3 million tonnes and 4 million tonnes of uneconomic coal a year, but in fact has been at a rate of between only 1 million and 2 million tonnes a year.

Mr. Ryman: Does the Secretary of State recall recently writing to me and refusing to see me in connection with threatened pit closures and redundancies at Bates' pit in Northumberland? Is he trying to be obtuse, or can he not help that? Does he realise that the National Coal Board's ferocious policy of closing pits in north-east England is causing immense hardship to communities including coal miners and their families, and is occurring against the overwhelming body of evidence which shows high productivity, good quality coal and profitability?

Mr. Walker: There are procedures for pit closures. Details are provided to the unions and full discussion takes place. That would apply to any pit closure.

Mr. Farr: Before my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he have a study made of the feasibility of giving uneconomic pits to the miners to operate as co-operatives?

Mr. Walker: We would certainly consider any approach by miners along those lines. I would not rule it out, but I have not seen any rush of miners to carry out that function.

Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State referred to people getting their figures right and wrong. Is it not a fact

that the Select Committee—and Mr. MacGregor gave evidence to it—found that, taking into account all the so-called savings of the overtime ban, the net cost of the ban in this financial year is £135 million? When did the Secretary of State discover that figure?

Mr. Walker: The figure was given by the National Coal Board a week or so— I forget the exact date—before the Select Committee met. It was also given in my evidence to the Select Committee. We both gave that evidence. I repeat, the profit and loss on revenue account is different from the cash flow. The Select Committee was informed by Mr. MacGregor and myself that the overtime ban had resulted in an improvement in the National Coal Board's cash flow.

Tenants (Electricity Charges)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce legislation preventing landlords from charging tenants more for electricity than the official rate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Giles Shaw: This has been the subject of a recent review by the Office of Fair Trading, which will shortly be issuing a consultative document.
I shall wish to consider that report and the reactions to it before deciding whether further action is required.

Mr. Greenway: When considering that report, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the downright unfairness of people paying rent to a landlord and then being surcharged for electricity by the same landlord? Surely that is unjust and iniquitous. Should not something be done about it?

Mr. Shaw: I recognise the validity of my hon. Friend's point. We will bear it in mind. He will be aware that area boards publicise maximum retail prices in their leaflets and information, of which landlords should take note.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister recall that his Department killed my private Member's Bill on that subject last Session? It would have criminalised overcharging by landlords. Does he realise that the Bill now has the support of the relevant consumer councils and reflects considerable anxiety because of the widespread abuse? The Government then used the excuse of an expected report from the Office of Fair Trading. When it now reports, will the Government seek another excuse for delaying the matter?

Mr. Shaw: I cannot inform the hon. Gentleman of the Government's response to the report. He should bear in mind that the matter was examined between 1974 and 1977 and that an investigation concluded that no statutory change was required. As the new investigation was inspired by the consumer consultative councils, I assure him that we shall pay the greatest possible attention to it.

Oil and Gas (Onshore Exploration)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the current number of licences granted by his Department for onshore exploration and production of oil and gas.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are currently 100 exploration and 113 production licences.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give details of the number of licences that have existed for a reasonably long


time during which no drilling has taken place? Will he also give an undertaking that he will liaise with his right hon. Friends responsible for planning matters to ensure some harmony between the development of exploration and production of onshore oil and gas and the planning mechanism of the local authorities involved, because of the view that they are out of harmony and that we need an update and examination of the issue?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I could not without notice give the hon. Gentleman the detailed information for which he has asked. I am sure he understands that. Liaison with the planning authorities is one aspect of the review that I have been carrying out for the past six months. I hope that when I announce the results of the review, which will be fairly soon, we shall be able to meet some of the points and anxieties which have been expressed and which I think the hon. Gentleman feels.

Mr. Orme: As Wytch farm is the largest onshore development, will the Minister give us an assurance that no action will be taken by the Government to sell that valuable asset before the Select Committee has met and reported?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that matter is under consideration and being dealt with at present.

Nuclear Power Stations

Mrs. Currie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the total cost to public funds to date of the new advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power stations at Heysham and Torness.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I am advised that the construction cost incurred by the CEGB to 31 December 1983 of the Heysham II power station was £777 million. Electricity in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mrs. Currie: Will my hon. Friend comment on the excellent progress that has been made on both sites? Does that not give the lie to the notion that new power stations cannot be built on time?

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. It is a fact that both the Heysham II and Torness reactors are moving to time and cost. That is no mean achievement.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do costs to the public include reprocessing costs based on ALARA — as low as reasonably achievable — or ALATA — as low as technically achievable — in terms of radiation discharges? Is the Minister aware that if the Government pursue the ALARA route and do not commit themselves fully to ALATA, they will further damage the environment of constituencies such as mine?

Mr. Shaw: I am aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman frequently expresses about matters affecting the environment in his constituency, but he will be aware that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. is the prime company involved in reprocessing in this country, and that the activities of that plant are fully licensed and regulated by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the jokes in my constituency used to be that if one

wanted to work for large sums of money, while making little effort, one went to work at Heysham I? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, fortunately, that situation has been significantly changed by the remarkable progress of Heysham II, which not only is on time and on cost but in real terms will be cheaper than Heysham I?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right that Heysham I encountered substantial delays due to many changes in the design. The advantage at Heysham II is that, with the benefit of consistency of design, one gets consistency of result.

Heavy Fuel Oil

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the effects of the increased price of heavy fuel oil on capital intensive industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Since I replied to my hon. Friend on 10 February, competition has already reduced the increase that I mentioned then.

Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of industry at the high price of heavy fuel oil, particularly 18 per cent. price increases in the past six months, the instantaneous nature of the price increases and the burden of heavy fuel oil tax?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of that concern, particularly in energy-intensive industries which use fuel oil. As my hon. Friend knows, the prices of that product tend to be higher in the winter because of seasonal factors. As I said earlier, the prices have eased somewhat, even since the last increase. It is significant that the United Kingdom price, net of tax, is comparable to prices elsewhere in Europe.

Power Stations (Obnoxious Fumes)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has given any recent guidance to the energy-producing industries about the emission of sulphurous fumes from power stations.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The Government examine closely any sign that changes may be needed in control of power station emissions, but I have issued no new guidance.

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend believe that British power stations are contributing to the growth of the acid rain? Is there any action that the Government can take to improve the situation?

Mr. Shaw: It is a fact that emissions from power stations contribute to the problem known as acid rain, but my hon. Friend will be aware that since 1972 there has been about a 30 per cent. reduction of emissions from United Kingdom power stations. It is therefore by no means certain that the amount that is currently being produced has added significantly to that great international problem.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the Government's response to the Royal Commission's recommendation that there should be a five-year programme of sulphur emission control? Do the Government intend to accept that recommendation and cough up the money to fund it?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Royal Commission is reporting to my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for the Environment. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Royal Commission's report correctly, he will note that it has made a recommendation about a single retrofit station being applied. He will also note many other recommendations, one of which states that an increase in nuclear power is desirable.

Mr. Speller: When talking about acid rain, will my hon. Friend confirm that no one is yet sure of the total emission factor, not least because in years gone by there were many more coal-burning chimneys and there were fish, greenery and no apparent problem of acid rain? Does he agree with the pamphlet recently produced in the United States, entitled:
A billion dollar solution to a million dollar problem"?
Does my hon. Friend therefore accept that we have to think carefully before we spend extensively on what may not be the true cause of the problem?

Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem demands careful research on what should best be done to reduce the incidence of acid rain. My hon. Friend will be aware that the CEGB and the NCB have combined to provide a £5 million budget for international research on the issue.

Sir Paul Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend pursue this matter urgently as our partners in Europe are extremely concerned about acid rain? Does he appreciate that if he visits the Black Forest, as I have, and witnesses the death of trees there and throughout Europe, he will realise that the problem requires urgent attention from the British Government as well as from other Governments?

Mr. Shaw: I accept that my hon. Friend has seen evidence of the problem for himself. He must accept, however, that there are many different aspects to this environmental damage, and that even the Swedes have now taken the view that the problems affecting their forests are different from those affecting their rivers and lakes.

Nuclear Power

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give his projections of the level of nuclear power in the United Kingdom up to the year 2000.

Mr. Peter Walker: My Department submitted a set of energy projections, including future nuclear capacity, in its evidence to the Sizewell B inquiry. A copy of this evidence was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 7 October 1982.

Mr. Skeet: I am certain that my right hon. Friend will agree that that answer is somewhat obscure. Does he agree that the French performance on nuclear power is much better than that of the United Kingdom? Does not the tenth report of the Royal Commission on atmospheric pollution suggest that certain environmental factors should discourage the use of coal—not merely pollution in the atmosphere, but subsidence and the deposit of colliery shale? Those problems could be avoided completely with a bigger nuclear pogramme.

Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend that a country such as the United Kingdom should have a wide range of supply options available, and I attach importance to the safe and economic development of nuclear power.

French industry and the French economy have benefited from the progress that the French have made in the use of nuclear power.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State further elucidate the reply to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and tell us whether, when the economic costing of nuclear power for the year 2000 is calculated, the disposal of waste is based on the ALARA or the ALATA principle?

Mr. Walker: All the factors involved are taken into consideration in the projections. On every factor known, there is no doubt that nuclear energy has proved to be a sensible and economic form of energy. It has certainly benefited France.

Mr. Forman: What proportion of United Kingdom electricity will be produced by nuclear power in the year 2000?

Mr. Walker: The submissions made previously in the report of the Department of Energy showed that the proportion of nuclear capacity could be between 25 and 30 per cent.

Mr. Douglas: If the Secretary of State's projections were fulfilled, what would be the effect on coal burn?

Mr. Walker: It is likely that coal burn will remain a substantial element. There is a range of options. 'There are variations in gas and oil supplies as well as in coal. There is no doubt that the programme that we have inherited was agreed to by the Labour Government.

Mr. Latham: Is there the slightest prospect of reaching the target that was announced to the House in November 1979 by the then Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)?

Mr. Walker: I do not recall the precise details of that announcement, but I should guess that the target then outlined will not be met, due to deferments and considerations of future investment programmes.

Mr. Orme: How important is Sizewell B to the Secretary of State's proposals?

Mr. Walker: I have not made proposals, but I have commented on the evidence that has been given about the role of Sizewell B. If, after the inquiry, it goes ahead, it would be an important factor; but we must await the results of that inquiry and consider fully what the inspector says.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Burt: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many cities have now been visited in the energy efficiency campaign by his Department's officials; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: My energy efficiency campaign has so far covered 15 towns and cities. The visits have included seven early-morning meetings with a total of 2,000 senior executives, and our investigations suggest that a majority of these are going on to take active steps to improve energy efficiency.

Mr. Burt: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and the obvious attention being paid by the Department to such an important matter. I direct his attention to the northwest of England, where a good proportion of traditional


manufacturing industry is located and which has much to gain from energy conservation schemes. Will he assure the House that through the scheme the Department is paying great attention to traditional manufacturing industry?

Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that there was a gathering in the north-west last week. We shall visit Manchester for a special session on 9 May, when there will also be an "Energy Saver Show". We believe that much can be achieved in the north-west.

Mr. Hannam: During the campaign will my right hon. Friend consult local authorities, which could make immense potential savings? Is he aware that in Devon nearly £1 million has been saved this year? Will he pursue that aspect as a major priority during his efficiency campaign?

Mr. Walker: Yes. In our estimate of what can be achieved in this area we believe that, with sensible energy efficiency methods, local authorities could save £100 million from their energy bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Early-day Motions

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will introduce proposals to enable regular debates by the House on early-day motions supported by more than 180 right hon. and hon. Members.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have no such proposals.

Mr. Dalyell: Why not?

Mr. Biffen: Because I am unaware of any deep or genuine demand.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us believe that there are already too many early-day motions and that if they were debated the situation would become intolerable? Does he further agree that if the proposals of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) were implemented the hon. Gentleman would be able to raise the boredom level to even greater heights that he already does?

Mr. Biffen: There is no doubt that many early-day motions are tabled as expressions of opinion rather than in the expectation of debate, and I believe that that serves a purpose.

Mr. Beith: If the Leader of the House cannot meet the request of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will he arrange for debates on subjects chosen by groups of members—say, those representing more than 20 per cent. of the electorate—which is a facility currently extended to the Labour party but not to other parties in the House?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman may wish to address that argument to the proposed Procedure Committee rather than to rehearse it now.

Standing Committees

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate discussions on the reform of Standing Committee procedures.

Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend will have noted from the Order Paper, it is proposed to set up a new Procedure

Committee, which, if the motion is approved by the House, will be asked to review our Standing Committee procedures.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he do all that he can to encourage the Committee to discuss the possible guillotining and timetabling of all Bills going through Parliament? As all controversial Bills are guillotined now if that is necessary to get them through, would not an agreed timetable from the outset facilitate better and more reasoned scrutiny of legislation?

Mr. Biffen: Those are highly controversial matters. I think that that is one reason why the Procedure Committee will wish to consider them in its own time and way.

Members Dining Room

Mr. Greenway: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Catering Sub-Committee is consulted about the menus in the Members Dining Room and cafeteria; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Montgomery: I have been asked to reply to this question.
The Catering Sub-Committee is not consulted about menus, which are the responsibility of the Head of the Refreshment Department and the Executive Chef. I hope the House will agree that the choice is admirably varied and the value excellent.

Mr. Greenway: I am sure that the House agrees with my hon. Friend, but does he share my regret at the decline of the traditional British pudding? Does he agree that Parliament has a role to play in preserving good rice pudding, summer pudding, plum pie and similar delights by placing them even more regularly on our menus? Does he not think that schools and housewives would then follow the example set by the House and keep the traditional pudding alive?

Mr. Montgomery: I remind my hon. Friend that there is a wide range of puddings on offer. In a 37-week parliamentary year rice pudding was on the menu more than 40 times, summer pudding 10 times—in view of our summer, that seems reasonable—and plum pudding 50 times around Christmas and 10 times in other periods of the year. I admire the way in which my hon. Friend has managed to keep his figure—he perhaps feels that he should be built up—but most hon. Members need to be built down because we have dietary problems. Therefore, we try to avoid fatty puds whenever we can. If my hon. Friend had been in the House at lunchtime today, however, instead of in his constituency, where I know that he is most diligent, he would have noticed that both plum pudding and custard and creamy rice with blackcurrants were on the menu.

Subway Access

Mr. Bowen Wells: asked the Lord Privy Seal if the New Buildings Sub-Committee will consider the question of subway access to the Palace.

Mr. Biffen: I will draw the matter to the attention of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) who is Chairman of the Sub-Committee.

Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of shame at the filthy condition of the Bridge street


underpass to this place? It is the approach that is most used by both British and overseas pedestrian visitors to the House. It is full of the most disgraceful dirt on the floor, ceiling and walls, and is rarely cleaned. It is frequently filled with faeces, both human and canine, with the appropriate smells. It is a cause for extreme shame when we are showing visitors to this country the Mother of Parliaments. Will my right hon. Friend arrange to have something done immediately about those deplorable conditions? In particular, is it possible for a subway to be built between the House and the underground in preparation for the new buildings in Parliament Street?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend clearly feels deeply about these matters, but his questions go somewhat wider than the original question. I understand that the cleaning of the subway is the responsibility of Westminster city council, but I will investigate the point.

Mr. Orme: Privatisation.

Mr. Biffen: I believe that the cleaning is part of municipal activity.
I shall take note of what my hon. Friend has said, because his question has evoked a wide response in the Chamber today. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tracey: In considering the matter of access to the House from remote offices, will my right hon. Friend consider the problem of access from the Dean's yard offices? Access is often blocked by large numbers of tourists in the Abbey pathways and by the lack of a pedestrian crossing to the House.

Mr. Biffen: That question definitely goes very wide of my hon. Friend's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Contract Costs

Mr. Eggar: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is now satisfied with the basis of comparing costs within the Civil Service with costs quoted by outside contractors when work is put out to tender.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Yes, and the necessary guidance has been issued to Departments.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread anxiety that fixed and overhead costs are not being allocated correctly when the Civil Service produces its internal costs? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the guidance note is published and made available to outside contractors?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes. I shall ensure that the guidance notes, or the essential elements, are put in the Library. I understand that a sensible financial framework has been established so that proper comparisons can be made.

Appointments (Qualifications)

Mr. Dubs asked: the Minister for the Civil Service for which Civil Service posts it is a requirement that the applicants must have British parents; and what is the definition of British for this purpose.

Mr. Hayhoe: It is not an absolute requirement for any Civil Service post that an applicant's parents must be

British citizens in the terms of the British Nationality Act 1981. The Civil Service Commission's nationality rules are difficult to summarise, and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that the careers service, certainly in London, is advising applicants for clerical posts in the Ministry of Defence that they must have British parents? Will the Minister provide more information—possibly not this afternoon—on the basis of Civil Service recruitment, as the stipulation that applicants for fairly junior posts must have British parents is confusing, to say the least, and unduly restrictive?

Mr. Hayhoe: It would appear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that there is some misunderstanding of the precise rules that should be applied. I am making them available in the Library. If the hon. Gentleman and anyone else have points that they would like to raise with me, I shall look into any detailed information that they want.

Trade Unions (Meeting)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the Civil Service trade unions.

Mr. Hayhoe: Plans for my next meeting with the Civil Service unions have not yet been made.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it true or proper for ACAS, in the form of Mr. Lambert, to be drawn into the controversial mire of Cheltenham?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad to be able to explain the precise formal circumstances, despite the fact that this question should properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I am advised that the official concerned, who is a career civil servant in the Department of Employment group and who has most recently been employed in the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for just over one year, returned to the Department of Employment last week. He has been made available by the Department to advise GCHQ management on future management-employee relations there. ACAS itself is in no way involved.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that he has just given an answer that in no way satisfies the House and is clearly a sleight of hand? Is he further aware that the decision to release an official of ACAS for work at GCHQ was taken entirely without consultation with the Council of Civil Service Unions? Is he further aware that the utter insensitivity of sending an ACAS official, even under the conditions that he has outlined, to set up a staff association following the ban on trade union membership at GCHQ is bound to cast doubt on the role of ACAS as a neutral mediator in all future industrial disputes and is extremely damaging to industrial relations?

Mr. Hayhoe: Although I can understand the hon. Lady misunderstanding the position before I answered the question in such clear terms, it is incredible that she should persist with her supplementary question, which was obviously written before she heard my answer.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a meeting about GCHQ with trade union representatives on 23 February; and on 14 February I met representatives of the non-industrial unions to discuss Civil Service catering.

Mr. Taylor: Since the events at Cheltenham are largely in the past, will my hon. Friend make every endeavor to maintain and improve relations with the Civil Service trade unions, first, because of their responsible conduct over a long period and, secondly, and more important, because of the importance of maintaining high morale in the Civil Service, which is vital to the efficient operation of government?

Mr. Hayhoe: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Barron: When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions, will he assure them that before a disgusting decision, such as was taken at Cheltenham, is taken again, he will sit down and discuss civil liberties, which were taken away from employees at Cheltenham?

Mr. Hayhoe: When I next meet the Civil Service unions, I expect to discuss the matters which are on the agenda for that meeting.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of State for the Civil Service what subjects he will be discussing at his next meeting with the Civil Service trade unions.

Mr. Hayhoe: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Why does the Minister not realise that to ask an official who was for a time connected with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to set up the new staff association is highly deplorable and deeply offensive to the trade union movement? Is the Minister aware that no matter what decision is taken by the Government about GCHQ, the trade unions will

campaign, and will never give up campaigning, to have the ban removed, in much the same way as the Civil Service unions fought the ban imposed by a Tory Government in 1927 against their being affiliated to the Trades Union Congress?

Mr. Hayhoe: No, Sir. However, I criticise the hon. Gentleman for his persistence in seeking to misrepresent the position regarding ACAS and the official going to GCHQ. The hon. Gentleman ill serves the cause of ACAS by behaving as he does.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: When the new staff association is set up at GCHQ, will those members of the staff who are still members of trade unions be allowed to stand for election to the council of the staff association?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend should address that question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister give a firm undertaking to the House that the Government have no plans whatever to introduce further bans on trade union activity anywhere in the United Kingdom like the ban they saw fit to introduce at Cheltenham?

Mr. Hayhoe: The assurance has been given in the clearest of terms by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. There is no intention to introduce similar action elsewhere. This action is confined to those agencies whose primary function is security and intelligence.

Dr. M. S. Miller: When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions will he put their minds at rest, especially in Scotland, about the dispersal of Overseas Development Administration jobs in East Kilbride, where there is a shortfall because the Government have not fulfilled their pledge?

Mr. Hayhoe: The Government stand firmly by the undertakings that they gave in July 1979 for the dispersal programme, especially for the dispersals that have been announced for Scotland.

Written Parliamentary Questions

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it relate to questions?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It relates to a written question that was replied to last Friday. Would you prefer to deal with it before, or after, the statement?

Mr. Speaker: I should prefer to take it after the statement, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Ministry of Defence (Organisation)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the future development of the organisation for defence.
This Government have increased significantly the defence budget, reflecting the priority that we attach to national security. By 1986–87, defence expenditure is planned to be 23 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79. The threat that we face from the Soviet Union and the growing cost of defence technology fully justify this policy. At a time of rising defence expenditure, it is particularly important that we satisfy the public—who bear the cost of defence—of our determination to ensure that the resources made available are put to best effect. We must ensure that the resources are applied to enhance the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces, and there can be no place for unnecessary bureaucracy and overheads. 
As Secretary of State for Defence, I introduced a new management information system—MINIS. Using this, I have carried out a review of the organisation of the Ministry and of staffs outside the front line. I have been much impressed by the quality of the staff—military and civilian — working in these areas. But the organisation for defence foreshadowed in the 1963 White Paper has only partly been carried through: the Ministry has a more federal structure than was envisaged then, and lines of accountability are blurred. There is overlap between the Ministry and commands. As a result, the organisation is less economical than it should be.
In judging the appropriate management structure for the Ministry, my overriding aim has been to strengthen the fighting effectiveness of our forces. Nothing must be done which would weaken the separate identities and traditions of the three fighting services. They play a vital part in the morale of our front-line units. Nor do I see any need to change the constitutional framework provided by the defence council and the three service boards. However, within this framework, I wish in future to draw a clearer distinction between the central formulation of advice on defence policy, operations and resource allocation and the management of the services.
I intend to create a combined defence staff, responsible under the chief of the defence staff and the permanent under-secretary for advising me on defence policy, military priorities and the conduct of military operations. The staff would incorporate the relevant parts of the naval, general and air staffs. I also intend that it should bring together my military and civilian advisers into an integrated structure.
In resource allocation and finance, I wish to see stronger central determination of priorities and clearer budgetary control through the creation of an office of management and budget under the permanent undersecretary. This would be coupled with clear financial delegation to identified managers through a system of responsibility budgets.
Under my proposals the management of each service would be the principal concern of the single-service chiefs of staff supported by the executive committees of each of the service boards. The boards and their executive committees would be responsible for administration rather


than policy, as was envisaged in the 1963 White Paper. I wish to see the maximum delegation of day-to-day administration to commands outside the Ministry.
In future, I would look to the chief of the defence staff and the permanent under-secretary as my two principal advisers. The chief of the defence staff would continue to be advised by the service chiefs of staff, who would be responsible to him: the chiefs of staff committee would continue with its present membership. I also propose that the chief scientific adviser and the chief of defence procurement should in future be responsible to me through the permanent under-secretary.
I have today placed in the Vote Office copies of a consultative paper which I am circulating in my Department. It is my intention to improve efficiency and to achieve significant savings. I will report further to the House when I have completed my consultations.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall wish to study the consultative document — because the statement is somewhat thin in substance — before we come to any conclusions? Is it not fair to say that one of the effects of the statement will be, for good or ill, greater centralisation in the Ministry of Defence, and that possibly the man in the Ministry will know even more than he was supposed to have known in the past?
Can the Minister confirm that his exercise in centralisation and against federalism, which is how he has in the past described the Ministry of Defence, means a reduction, again for good or ill, in the power of the service chiefs? In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that nothing must be done to weaken the identity and loyalty of the three fighting services. does he agree that, behind the camouflage of those words, that might be his intention?
In the MINIS exercise, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring in the important procurement executive? As he will know, there is a symbiotic relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the arms manufacturers. Will the MINIS exercise look at this relationship in detail to see whether we can get more value for money?
At the end of the day, how much money will the right hon. Gentleman save from this exercise? Many Opposition Members suspect that the exercise probably has more to do with the right hon. Gentleman's Walter Mitty world of being a management whiz kid than with his addressing himself to the real problems of defence, such as the £500 million extra on Trident and all the other costs that will be incurred over the next few years. Is it not a fact that, at the end of the day, whatever effect the MINIS exercise will have, in the next few years there will have to be a major maxi-defence review because the Government cannot maintain their present defence commitments on their present budget.

Mr. Heseltine: I can help the right hon. Gentleman. There is no defence review in prospect as far as I am aware, and, within the budgets to which we are working, we can meet the obligations to which the Government have set their hand.
I shall deal now with the specific question. Yes, the review will cover the procurement executive, and I have already asked the National Defence Industries Council to help me in looking at the interface between the

procurement executive and the arms manufacturing industries to ensure that we can get better value for money from that part of my responsibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman is right in pointing to the fact that my proposals involve a greater amount of centralisation, but that is why the Ministry of Defence was set up in 1963—to take over responsibility for the three armed services.

Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend accept that most Conservative Members will welcome what he has had to say? Can he say a little more about the combined staff that is to be created? My understanding of the position is that it is an extension of something started by Admiral Lord Lewin as he now is and his predecessors at the Ministry of Defence. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the role of the central staff and its capability to deal with a crisis? Is he satisfied that because of these proposals we shall be in a better position to deal with the unexpected, such as the Falklands, than we have in the past?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The concepts on which I have been embarked owe their foundation to earlier generations of politicians in this place, particularly my noble Friend the Earl of Stockton, as he now is, who was much involved in this process some 20 years ago. The original concept also owed much of its design to the late Lord Mountbatten and the late Lord Montgomery, who had commanded great military forces in battle and seen the benefits that came from a unified approach to those armed services. That is why the Ministry of Defence was created. Within the Ministry, the federal structure had to some extent lived on, and my proposals are designed to deal with that.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: To promote the devolution to commands that the Secretary of State desires of administrative day-to-day work, will he encourage commands to deal direct with hon. Members more than they do on matters that fall strictly within that definition, because, for ordinary hon. Members, his Ministry is much the most centralised and, to that extent, the more difficult to deal with?

Mr. Heseltine: I am conscious of the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises. If he can give me details of the problems that arise, I shall be happy to look at them. The difficulty, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, is that there has to be some central coordination, because the final political responsibility has to be carefully fitted in to the individual views of commanders in post.

Mr. Julian Critchley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us welcome this exercise, which is ostensibly to achieve economy, not least because after 1986 there appears to be no increase in defence spending?

Mr. Heseltine: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the period after 1986. By that stage, of course, we shall have an even larger defence budget than the one we enjoy at present, but it is important, particularly with a rising budget, to intensify endeavors to give value for money from that budget. Otherwise, there is a temptation for management controls to become lax as financial availability increases.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is a need to concentrate and centralise the financial advice


coming to a Secretary of State, but will the right hon. Gentleman beware of weakening and diluting the advice coming from the individual services, because what eventually emerges out of compromise at the centre in defence matters is too often wrong?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. The centralised structure that I have in mind will contain single service building blocks, but I am seeking to replace the present situation whereby much of the advice depends on three individual single service staffs, which, by their very nature, can be competitive in their approach.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I welcome his plans to improve efficiency and co-ordination? Will he say a little more about the future of the three services? Will he maintain their complete independence so that they can retain their traditions and pride in their own ships, regiments, squadrons, which are so important?

Mr. Heseltine: I have deliberately expressed my determination to achieve that objective in the open government document that is available in the Vote Office. The House should be aware that there has already been a significant step in the direction in which I intend to go. For example, the chief of defence staff is now responsible for operations in which two or more services are involved. My proposal today takes that a step further, making him responsible for all operations. Within that, it is critical that the single service chiefs of staff should be responsible for the management and morale of their own services.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is it not remarkable that, 20 years after the White Paper, and two reorganisations latter, there is still a federal structure in the Ministry of Defence to which the Minister has to address himself? Will the measures that he has described do anything to allay the fears of many people in the services that the Minister retains a complement of desk-bound senior officers far beyond the requirements of the services nowadays?

Mr. Heseltine: I should not wish to use the hon. Gentleman's language. He touched on an important matter in his first question, that 20 years after the White Paper was first published, in 1963, there has been more of an appearance than a form of rationalisation. We have to deal with that issue.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: In his reorganisation plans, will my right hon. Friend consider lengthening the period for which senior officers in each of the services remain in post at MOD, thus making it possible for them to increase —by their experience—their influence on events, as well as perhaps reducing their numbers somewhat?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue, and it is a matter on which I intend to have discussions. We may not need to have a general rule of the type that my hon. Friend postulates. We could perhaps have certain posts which attract a longer period of service.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I see shades of Sir Solly Zuckerman and Sir Hermann Bondi. Why is it that the chief scientist to the Ministry of Defence is now humiliated in having to go to his Secretary of State through the permanent secretary? Is the explanation the annoyance

of the Prime Minister that Professor Sir Ronald Mason, when he occupied that post, objected stridently and vigorously to nuclear weapons going south with the task force to the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman would find some way of introducing that subject, and I congratulate him on his ingenuity. However, I am afraid that my answer will disappoint him, because there is no such significance in the reorganisation that I have proposed. The reorganisation is simply a recognition of the real world within the Ministry of Defence that if anything were to become a matter of concern to me within the procurement executive, or within the field of the chief scientist, I would be bound to involve the permanent secretary in any discussions that took place. It seems appropriate to recognise that position in the management scheme.

Mr. Peter Viggers: As one who has served in two of the armed forces and now represents a large part of the third, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, because it recognises the unity of the three armed forces. My right hon. Friend has confirmed that he will retain the spirit of the ship, the regiment and the squadron, but does he envisage some increase in cross-posting?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose conspicuous service to his country is known, for drawing the thoughts of the House to this issue. I do not immediately see this as an opportunity for cross-posting, but as a significant opportunity for a much closer working relationship between the services at the senior posting level.

Mr. Dick Douglas: What were the right hon. Gentleman's tactics in making this announcement in advance of the White Paper on defence? Will he give us some indication of its effects on procurement and allocation in the dockyards? Is there likely to be an intensification of navalisation and privatisation?

Mr. Heseltine: I am concerned that the dockyards should fulfill the general remit of value for money that I am applying to the Department at large and that there should be an opportunity for other yards to compete for some of the work within the dockyards. That would be widely welcomed by many hon. Members, particularly those who represent constituencies on a wider basis.
I am making this announcement in advance of the White Paper because the White Paper will contain many other matters of interest and I did not want the House to lose sight of this issue.

Mr. Michael Marshall: In view of the review of defence procurement which my right hon. Friend has announced, and which I welcome, and in view also of the relationship which I understand the chief of defence procurement will have with him, what does he hope to learn from the Falklands in terms of improved defence procurement and, indeed, the streamlining of that process which was brought out by the campaign?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. We have published a White Paper on the lessons to be learnt from the Falklands campaign and the Select Committee on Defence is considering some of those at this moment. When I visited the Falklands it was widely drawn to my attention how much people at all levels in each of the services felt that the one lesson that they had


learnt from the Falklands experience was that there was great benefit to be gained from the individual armed services working much more closely with their opposite numbers. I hope that we shall be able to carry this lesson through in the way in which we run the defence programme.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in the reorganisation, as with other matters within the Department, there will be no investigation or transfer of civilian staff because of their political views, which, surely, they are entitled to hold? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of concern was expressed when reports came out last week that there had been such investigations into the private political views of civil servants within his Ministry?

Mr. Heseltine: There was considerable concern last week, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, when we discovered that a member of CND was using the internal postal facilities of the MOD to spread propaganda. That seemed to me a legitimate concern, because we uphold the time-honoured traditions of all Governments that, while matters of political conscience should not be interfered with, there should be no use of Government time or machinery to further one's own political ends.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. Friend aware that many companies in this country, particularly smaller firms, feel that the spin-off from Ministry of Defence technology is less to British firms than that enjoyed by firms abroad? Will reorganisation help to deal with that issue?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend touches on an important matter. We are pursuing this issue in a number of ways, first, by inviting private sector companies to set up organisations alongside some of the research establishments to try to exploit any spin-off that might be available. Secondly, we are trying to introduce more opportunities for small firms to become involved in Ministry of Defence procurement. We are also talking to the National Defence Industries Council about the industrial property rights relevant in the civil field that it derives on the back of the defence procurement budget. These issues are not in the main line of the announcement that I have made today, but we have been pursuing them independently.

Mr. Tim Eggar: In addition to savings in administration, must there not be devolution of decision-taking, particularly regarding the budgets, at a specific level within the Civil Service and the armed services? At what level does my right hon. Friend intend to assign responsibility for budgets?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend, who has a deep knowledge of these matters, will have noticed that I referred to the special responsibility budgets that we intend to introduce. The purpose is to give line managers, whether they be military personnel of civil servants, the opportunity to administer control over specific budgets, which they will understand, and for which they will be responsible. This is a new concept and one which I think is exciting in its implications. I could not answer my hon. Friend's question specifically today, because what I have

announced is the beginning of a detailed investigation into precisely what levels of responsibility should enjoy such budgets.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Further to the question that was asked about procurement, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the way in which the two-way street process is proceeding? Will he ensure that, in procurement, the Ministry of Defence is not bludgeoned into accepting everything that the Americans want to sell us?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, welcome the fact that the two-way process has advanced to the point where a very much less unfavorable balance exists between this country and the United States than existed a few years ago. It is an important point, and I constantly discuss it with my opposite number in America, who shows as much concern about it as I do.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has an important Back-Bench day before it. I shall call those hon. Gentlemen who have been rising to ask questions if they will put their questions briefly.

Mr. John Page: How widely within my right hon. Friend's Ministry will the consultative document be spread for information to come back to him?

Mr. Heseltine: I suspect that it will be spread extremely widely within my Ministry. I have taken steps to ensure that that is the case, and I have taken steps also to ensure that it is widely available outside the Department. I have made the document available to the House, of course, and I hope that the House will feel that, at a time when one is trying to bring about change in Whitehall, an informed public debate in the open is extremely helpful.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are there manpower implications in the right hon. Gentleman's statement for civil and military personnel?

Mr. Heseltine: I should think that there would be manpower implications for military and civil personnel. I cannot answer the precise question about how many, because we are only just beginning the detailed analysis. We are not trying to save money in total. What we are trying to do is to spend less money on the overheads of defence, in order to transfer that money to the fighting front.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is it not desirable and timely that these organisational changes should be made, especially as, in the years beyond 1986, the Ministry of Defence will need all the help that it can get from this kind of efficiency?

Mr. Heseltine: I assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Defence will accept all the help that it can get in any circumstances. I am absolutely clear that, if we are to continue to enjoy public support for the level of defence spending that is currently Government policy, it is incumbent upon those responsible to be seen to be achieving maximum value for the money involved in our very high budgets.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the purpose of the 1963 reform remains as valid today as it was then, namely,


that neither inter-service rivalry nor inter-departmental jealousies can stand in the way of essential value for money? Is he confident that this reform will have a significant impact on preventing procurement costs from outstripping inflation?

Mr. Heseltine: The White Paper which we hope to publish in the not-too-distant future will have more to say about the achievement of value for money, which is critical. The relative sophistication of modern technology has brought about an ever-increasing need for a close interrelationship between the three armed services.

Viscount Cranborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his remarks about the importance of spin-off from defence research establishments, such as the AUWE at Portland in my constituency, will be widely welcomed? When considering procurement will he examine the relationship not only between the MOD and contractors, but that between contractors and subcontractors to see whether the best value for money is being obtained?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend addresses a difficult issue, and one in which I have taken a particular interest, because today not sufficient of my departmental procurement is subject to competitive tender, one reason being that there is often only a single source. We have, therefore, been spending much time trying to devise a system to get behind the nominated contractor to the procurement of that contractor, so as to get competition at the secondary and tertiary levels.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend not find it remarkable that he should be criticised by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) apparently for not being prepared at some time in the future to spend enough on defence, bearing in mind

how much we are spending on defence and how the Labour party fought the last election on a commitment to reduce defence expenditure, which was so extreme that it would have been the equivalent of cutting the Royal Navy?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. If he is asking me if I am surprised to be criticised for inconsistency by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the answer, sadly, must be no, because I would expect no less of him.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Leaving aside that irrelevant question and answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, especially given the practice of previous Conservative Governments—and remembering that he was a member of a Government who tried to reorganise local government with a McKinsey-type management which obviously did not work — he thinks that centralisation will save money, when experience does not bear that out?
Further to my earlier question, will he say how much he thinks will be saved, in view of his remark that not only will he improve efficiency—and we shall have to see what happens about that—but will achieve significant savings? He must have some figure in mind.

Mr. Heseltine: No, I do not have a figure in mind. It will emerge from the detailed investigation that we are about to undertake. My hunch is that there will be significant savings. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of his rather unfortunate reference to local government, because under this Government we have got manpower in local government back to what it was in 1973. The only person ever to push local government down faster than we have done was the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), with the difference that we did it voluntarily and he did it at the behest of the IMF.

Written Parliamentary Questions

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 9 March I tabled a question to the Prime Minister, pursuant to an answer that she had given on 6 March about civil servants who had accompanied her on her visit to Oman.
I am not raising this point of order in relation to the content of the right hon. Lady's reply; I understand that to do so would be out of order. My point is concerned with the accessibility of hon. Members to the reply. My question asked the Prime Minister
if she will give the names of each civil servant by Department who accompanied her on her official visit to Oman in April 1981."—[Official Report, 9 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 719–20.]
In her reply the right hon. Lady identified four groups of civil servants, those from 10 Downing street, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, from the Ministry of Defence and from the Central Office of Information. She noted that those from 10 Downing street were: Mr. Ingham, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Lankester, Mr. Anson, Mr. Pike, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Dibblon, Mrs. Cummings and Mrs. Ailes. From the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, those who accompanied her were: Sir J. Graham, Mr. Humphrey, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Leigh, Mr. Dunbar Smith, Mr. Valentine, and Mr. Talbot. From the Ministry of Defence went Sir R. Ellis, whoever he might be, and from the Central Office of Information went a Mr. Ensoll.
Those names from individual Departments were included in a written reply sent to me by letter, not given in a written reply by way of a parliamentary answer. Indeed, the Prime Minister wrote to me last Friday saying:
You asked me which Civil Servants accompanied me on my visit to the Middle East in 1981.
That was the subject of my written question.
It is not normally my practice, for obvious reasons of confidentiality, to list in the Official Report the names of individual members of staff, although the names of senior members of Downing street staff are listed in the main reference books.
My point of order is simple. Is it a requirement of parliamentary practice that, when an hon. Member tables a question which requires an answer identifying civil servants, other hon. Members should be denied access to that information? Is it a requirement that such lists are provided in the form of a letter only to the individual asking the question? If that is the case, can you take steps to ensure that the information is made available in the Library?

Mr. Speaker: In my experience, that is frequently done. The House will know that I have no responsibility for what is contained in answers to questions. That is not a matter for me.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Electricity (Private Generating Stations and Requests by Private Generators and Suppliers) Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 136) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Public Records (British Railways Board) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions 1 and 2 on the Order Paper.

AGRICULTURE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Scheme (Application to Banff) Revocation Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved. — [Mr. Major.]
That the draft Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Scheme 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Major.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Standing Committees on European Community Documents.)

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. R/67/75, R/55/76 and R1804/78 setting out proposals for Council Directives on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to construction plant and equipment, and the permissable sound emission levels for concrete breakers and picks (jackhammers), tower cranes, current generators and compressors, and the supplementary memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 28th November 1983; and supports the Government's intention to seek final agreement on these proposals for Directives which would facilitate trade within the Community and safeguard the protection of workers and the environment.—[Mr. Major.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 113(2) (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House to now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Orders of the Day — Turkey

Mr. Chris Smith: Until I was elected to the House last June, I had never been to Turkey. I was aware only of its enormous strategic importance as a country that straddles the divide between two continents. I was aware of the richness of its history and its culture and the staggering beauty of its countryside, landscape and coastline. I was aware also of the large number of Turkish people who are now my constituents who live in Islington and have a deep attachment to their former homeland.
Last summer, I had the privilege of visiting Turkey to see for my own eyes the country and its countryside and what is happening in terms of human rights and individual liberties. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and I were profoundly shocked by what we saw. We talked to people who were on trial for crimes that in any western Europe country would not count as crimes. We talked to defendants and their lawyers. We talked to those who had been in prison and their families. We talked also to local and international journalists. What we saw and found did not make edifying learning or experience.
There was considerable evidence of widespread use of torture. I talked to three people who had been tortured by the military authorities. The accounts of conditions in the prisons, especially the military prisons, were deeply shocking. Democratic and trade union rights were frustrated. There was considerable and subtle press censorship. We witnessed the mass trial of DISK trade unionists, 78 of whom were on trial together. That trial was shocking and Kafkaesque. It was nothing more or less than a perversion of traditional British codes and mores of justice.
The trial is still going on. There are 78 defendants herded together in a converted gymnasium outside Istanbul. Soldiers patrol the courtroom. Two copies of the 700 page indictment are available to the 78 defendants. We saw that attempts to intervene during the proceedings to protest at inaccurate information were slapped down by the military judges who were presiding. The lawyer who began the defence was arrested and imprisoned on other charges two days after beginning the defence. The lawyer who succeeded him was subsequently arrested as well. If the lawyers' case in any of the mass trials still continuing is disliked by the military judges, those lawyers are

dismissed by order of the court. We, and I hope the Government, would not dream of countenancing in this country what is occurring to justice and human rights in Turkey.
Since last summer, there has been an election in Turkey. That has been heralded by some Conservative Members as a return to democracy or, if they qualify their statement, as a major step on the way back to democracy. The so-called election was a major step of a kind. The election of Özal rather than the favored military candidate General Sunalp was an example of the Turkish people cocking a snook at the military regime which had ruled them until that time. That was a valid expression of some of the Turkish people's wishes in a partly democratic way.

Sir Antony Buck: Does the fact that the party favoured by the junta did not win give some sign that the following elections were substantially fair? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Council of Europe has investigated and, on the whole, has given that election a clean bill of health?

Mr. Smith: The facts that General Sunalp received such a derisory and unexpectedly low vote and that Özal won the election is a sign that the people of Turkey have disliked the military regime, whatever their welcome to the military in 1980. It is not a sign that the elections were fair or fully democratic. The reason is that only three parties were permitted to fight that election, and 12 other political parties, which wished to fight the election and which in due time had submitted names of candidates and sponsors to the military regime, were prohibited from participating in the election. In this country, I do not believe we call a democratic process a contest between only those parties and only those candidates of which a military regime happens to approve. A fully democratic choice was not available to the people of Turkey.

Mr. John Corrie: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that only 4 percent. of the people destroyed their papers. If a large number of people had felt that it was not a democratic election, they could have destroyed their papers, but they chose to vote for one of the three parties.

Mr. Smith: They chose to vote for one of the parties because they believed that it was the most effective way of showing their distaste for military rule. By so doing, they did not give credence or justification to the limitation on the number of political parties able to stand. There was not just the prohibition of the 12 parties that wished to contest the election, but the banning of all political parties that had existed in Turkey until the coup in 1980, including the party founded by Ataturk.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge therefore that in the recent elections in Russia only one party put up candidates, and that of the 1,500 candidates who stood for election, 1,499 were elected and one died in the process? Does he equally condemn that?

Mr. Smith: Of course, and I have never sought to advocate Russia as an example of a democratic nation. It is not, and I condemn the fact that it is not. However, I should hope that the hon. Gentleman will also condemn the fact that the Turkish elections were not fully democratic, because it is clear that they were not.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Do we not have the right to criticise Turkey, especially because it happens to be a NATO ally? As NATO is supposed to exist to defend freedom and democracy, is it not ironical, or worse, that there is a NATO country in which there is no freedom and democracy?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has, of course, anticipated the part of my argument to which I shall come later. His point is extremely apt. The justification that we in the House and the country traditionally offer for our opposition to the Soviet system of Government is that it is not democratic. The point made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) is exactly that. Our criticisms of the Soviet system of Government should surely be applied in an unabiased way around the world rather than just of those countries behind the iron curtain.
Quite apart from the fact that the election was not fully democratic and that the choice of parties was restricted, if we study the powers available to the Turkish Government today, we find that the military regime is still in overall control. If one studies the constitution and the powers that are available to the President, who is of course still a military man, to override the Parliament and the Prime Minister, one finds that they are still considerable. If one studies the eight regional centres of military government which have been set up within the past nine months, one finds that considerable powers are available to the military. If one studies the report of a visit by three members of the Motherland party which was arranged by the President of the Parliament, a member of Özal's own party, with the sanction and authority of the Prime Minister, to Diyarbakir military prison in the east of Turkey, one will discover that they were not permitted to visit the prison and that they were not received by the military commander. If that is an example of the degree of control which the supposedly democratically elected Turkish Government have over the operation of the military authorities, it is a sad day for those who wish to claim that democracy in Turkey is on its way back.
It seems that Özal is being given his head by the military authorities to deal with economic matters, but everything that relates to civil liberties and matters of security is kept entirely and firmly in the hands of the military who previously ruled in every respect. The abuse of human rights and individual liberty is still manifest and institutionalised even some three or four months after those elections.
The Turkish Peace Association trial decisions were reached on 14 November, one week after the elections that brought in Özal as Prime Minister. Of the Turkish Peace Association, 23 members were condemned to harsh and long prison sentences. Of those, 18 were sentenced to eight years' imprisonment followed by two years and eight months of internal exile. The other five were sentenced to five years' imprisonment, followed by 20 months of internal exile. Their only crime was that they had argued for peace and a nuclear-free future for Turkey. I am not aware, much as Conservative Members may disagree with such a view, that they have ever argued that people should be prevented from advocating such a policy. Those arrested, condemned and imprisoned include Dr. Mahmet Dickerden, former ambassador to India, who suffers badly from cancer, Dr. Erdal Atabek, head of the Turkish Medical Association, two former Members of Parliament, and Mr. Orhan Apaydin, the president of the Istanbul bar

association. I do not believe that I shall ever forget meeting Mr. Apaydin in the bar association headquarters in Istanbul. He is frail and elderly, and one of the gentlest people that I have ever met. He and 20 other male prisoners condemned by the same trial verdict are all herded in one cell in Metris military prison outside Istanbul. He faces further trumped-up charges in another trial.
That should be indication enough that human rights have not yet been restored to Turkey. One should also consider what is happening in other prisons. Conditions in Turkish goals seem to be every bit as bad as they were before the election. Since 24 February 1,500 prisoners —a staggering number when one stops to think—have been on hunger strike in Mamak prison in Ankara protesting about the continuing use of torture.
There is substantial evidence that that hunger stike has spread to other prisons. Since January, there has been a major hunger strike in the Diyarbakir prison in the eastern part of Turkey, and seven people have so far died as a result. Those hunger strikes are in protest at the substantial and continued use of torture and the general conditions in the prisons.
The passion that lies behind such demonstrations and the severe pain and suffering that individuals are prepared to undergo should give us serious pause for thought when we consider the general human rights record of the supposedly new Turkish authorities.
The way in which the supposedly new Turkish Government are still responding and reacting to the Kurdish minority in the eastern part of Turkey, and the continuing mass trials of trade unionists, political opponents and the citizens of Fatsa in north Turkey, show us that justice, as we traditionally understand it, is not being administered.

Mr. Wiggin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting his speech twice. Will he also address himself to the situation before September 1980, when about 20 people a day were being slaughtered in the streets? More than 5,250 people were killed in the two years before September 1980. How does the hon. Gentleman see that in the light of his speech? Will he compare the two situations?

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the only answer to completely unjustifiable activity and political violence on the streets is military dictatorship and repression, he is entitled to his opinion, but I beg leave to disagree. There is ample evidence that the violence that took place before the military coup was widely feared and disliked by the Turkish people, but there is also ample evidence that the Turkish people intitially welcomed the military regime. I would have disagreed with them at the time as I do not think that military regimes are an answer to such violence, but on the whole the Turkish people seemed to welcome that step in 1980.
From talking to many Turkish people, and in the light of the various expressions of dislike and distaste since 1980, I believe that it is also true that the Turkish people rapidly came to believe that the military regime was not operating in their interest. Certainly, by the election in November last year, it was clear that the people of Turkey did not welcome the activities and human rights record of the regime.
One can only go further than that and say that the suffering imposed on individuals and the denial of


individual liberty in Turkey should never be justified by reference to any activity that may or may not have taken place before 1980. One must consider such matters against that background, but there is no justification for the denial and perversion of individual liberty. I hope that no hon. Member of the House will ever dream of trying to justify that.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I shall not because other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
The conclusion that we must reach is that the democracy that has supposedly been returned to Turkey over the past three or four months is no democracy at all. The denial of individual liberty that is continuing —whether Conservative Members seek to justify it —cannot possibly be seen as defensible or justifiable.

Sir Bernard Braine: rose——

Mr. Smith: Doubtless the hon. Gentleman is about to attempt to justify it.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman should not be so impertinent. When he has been in the House a little longer, he will realise that in debate, when one gives way, one listens carefully to the point. No one in the Conservative party would justify the destruction of human rights anywhere in the world. I bitterly reject the suggestion that anyone in the Conservative party would do so.
I was rising to say that the hon. Gentleman should realise that the Turks are a proud nation. If they have had the courage to get rid of a military regime under which, no doubt, violations of human rights took place, they should be praised. If the steps that they have taken so far are, in the judgment of the hon. Gentleman, insufficient, that is his opinion, and he is entitled to say so. For most of his speech, he argued that proposition in a way from which I do not dissent. However, the hon. Gentleman must realise that Turkey has embarked on a democratic course and needs encouragement in that course. The course that he is advocating is not advanced by trying to pretend that there are hon. Members in the House who would justify the violation of human rights in Turkey or anywhere else.

Mr. Smith: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for saying that I thought that he would seek to justify the abuse of human rights. I suspect that some Conservative Members would seek to defend the actions of the present Turkish regime.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point, I simply say that Turkey may have had an election, and it may have elected a party from among the previous military regime's selection of three that was not the regime's favorite party. Turkey may have elected that party and the leader of it as Prime Minister. However, that is as far as Turkey has advanced towards democracy, and no further. If one considers what is happening, in the prisons where people are being tortured, the actions towards the Kurdish minority, and the fact that the trials are being conducted in as outrageous a fashion as before, if one looks across the board at the record of human rights and individual liberty of this Turkish Government, one sees that it is every hit as bad as the record of the Turkish Government before November last year. That is the crucial point. To

claim that fully fledged democracy has returned is both to misunderstand what has happened and to credit the new Turkish Government with more than they deserve.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I have listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman. Does he say that in general the present Government are an improvement on the previous Government, and are more easy to influence in democratic ways?

Mr. Smith: I would not say so, because all the evidence is that that is not so. The international attempts that have been made to persuade the new Turkish Government to take a stronger stand on human rights and ameliorate some of the activities of the previous Government have all, apparently, failed. If one needs any evidence to the contrary, that the situation may be getting worse than it was, one has only to look at what has happened to the defendants in the Turkish Peace Association trial and what is happening now in the goals in Mamak and Diyarbakir. That gives the worrying impression that things may be deteriorating, far from getting better.
In the face of all that, what is the British Government's response to what has happened and is happening in Turkey? Where are the British Government's protests about human rights violations by a supposed ally? For example, in the Council of Europe, British Conservative Members of Parliament have not only failed to support moves to exclude Turkey from the council, but have taken the lead in trying to frustrate such moves by other European countries. Effectively, Britain is one of only two European nations that offer open and strong support for the Turkish Government. Defence arrangements are progressing, and the Secretary of State for Defence has visited Turkey to improve relations between our two countries. Although the Foreign Office will say in private briefings that it has words of concern and disquiet to say to the Turkish Government, in public it is openly supportive of the regime.
I give credit to the Government for one thing—the strong stand that they have taken on the Denktash, declaration in Cyprus and the pressure that they have openly brought to bear on Turkey about that. On progress towards democracy and human rights in Turkey, however, I fear that the British Government have been far too complacent and silent. The contrast between the outcry that the Government have continually and rightly made about the denial of trade union rights and the treatment of Lech Walesa in Poland and their complete silence or the subject of trade union rights in Turkey and the treatment of Basturk, general secretary of DISK, is eloquent testimony to that. To my mind, the British Government have given credence and support to the human rights record of Turkey through their public silence on the issue.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman should not make wild suggestions. The British Government have not supported the denial of human rights in Turkey, but Conservatives are more indulgent towards a country that has come out of a period of ferocious civil war and is now trying to re-establish democracy. Democracy and civil rights are rare commodities in the modern world and countries trying to establish them require help and support. In two weeks' time, regional and municipal elections are due in Turkey in which all parties will participate. I should have hoped that the Opposition


would give Turkey the help and support that it needs to re-establish democracy rather than constantly carping and criticising.

Mr. Smith: I am perfectly prepared to give help and support to those who are genuinely seeking to establish democracy and protect individual liberty. I hope that Conservative Members are, too. At the moment, however, there is little evidence that the Turkish Government are able, because in these matters they are still under the control of the military, to set about the re-establishment of individual liberty and human rights in a meaningful way, especially as it affects anyone who disagrees with the military and what they have done. The British Government must bear responsibility for being so silent on these matters and for not having condemned as vociferously as possible the abuses of human rights in Turkey.
Government spokesmen have argued that Turkey is of crucial strategic importance as a bulwark at the frontier of the NATO Alliance and must therefore be supported. The NATO Alliance supposedly exists to defend freedom and democracy. It is ironic indeed that in order to defend that Alliance we are expected to support a nation that for four years has consistently abjured and abused those very principles. It is twisted logic to suggest that because Turkey is so important strategically for NATO we must tolerate and condone that which we, would not tolerate or condone in countries whose regimes we despise or disagree with because they are on the other side of an ideological divide.
I believe that liberty and human rights are indivisible and that we must protest at their denial wherever it occurs. It is doubly important that we speak out and do not remain complacently silent in countries where we have an influence, especially in a country which is a member of NATO, an associate member of the EEC and still—thanks to the efforts of Conservative Members — a member of the Council of Europe and which owes allegiance to the European declaration of human rights.
It is important also that we speak out because individual people in Turkey are supposed to be protected by the same network of alliances and treaties that supposedly protect our own liberty. For that reason, we must do all that we can to protect the liberties of the Turkish people. That does not mean sitting idly and silently by, acquiescing in the intolerable. I charge the Government with having done just that for the past three years and with continuing to do so. I urge them to speak out much more forcefully and credibly than they have so far on the abuse of human rights and individual liberties that is still taking place in Turkey. I hope that today's debate will give them the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: It was a revelation to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He entirely ignored the enormous difficulties that the Republic of Turkey has been through in the past few years and then made accusations about Conservative Members because we support Turkey's efforts to reintroduce democracy. It is extraordinary that he made no reference to the fact that before September 1980 20 to 30 people per day were being

killed in Turkey due to terrorist activity by extreme Left-wing and Right-wing organisations throughout the country. The democratic institutions and the very fabric of the republic were under threat and it was rapidly descending toward not just civil war but the complete breakdown of that country withing the NATO Alliance. To ignore that and to make wild allegations and sweeping generalisations about Turkey today and about Conservative Members is not just naive but extremely dangerous.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In his apology for the Turkish junta, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many people have been executed since General Even came to power and how many more are on death row?

Mr. Hickmet: People in Turkey today can walk the streets freely, in security and safety, without danger of being shot or murdered by extreme Righ-wing or Left-wing groups.
Turkey is one of the most important nations within NATO. It is one of our most important allies, and our relations with it are of paramount importance. Its strategic importance cannot be over-emphasised. It has borders with Bulgaria, the Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Greece. The route from the Black sea for Soviet vessels lies through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Turkey is the West's south-eastern frontier with the Soviet Union. Without Turkey there is no NATO.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is using exactly the same argument as was used by some Conservative Members before the second world war. They thought that Fascism would be the best bulwark against Communism. The hon. Gentleman is now justifying a Fascist regime in Turkey on the ground that it provides a bulwark against Communism. That shows the hon. Gentleman's real position. He is concerned not to defend freedom and democracy, but at all costs to prevent anything Left-wing from happening in the world.

Mr. Hickmet: That statement is of such naivety that I find it difficult to answer. I am trying to demonstrate the importance of Turkey to the freedom of the West. It is important for us to encourage and foster the promotion of democracy in the Republic of Turkey.
I invite the House to examine a map of the region. The Soviet Union has already occupied Afghanistan. Between Russia and the Indian ocean, which has been its goal for the past 200 years, lies Iran or Pakistan. At present, Iran and Iraq — Turkey's immediate neighbors — are pursuing a war of such ferocity and on such a scale that civilised nations, including Turkey, are aghast. The consequences of outright victory for either side would be grave.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hickmet: The Soviet Union is waiting in the wings to move into Iran from Azerbaydzhan if an opportunity should present itself. NATO would then have to ask itself whether it should take any action. Are Labour Members aware that it would be from Turkey that NATO would have to take action?

Ms. Short: Has the hon. Gentleman not read the smuggled-out letter which Mr. Demirel admits to having written when he was in detention until recently? Mr.


Demirel said that, although Turkey has in the past been loyal to NATO, it cannot be assumed that it always will be, and that if the West will not support the Turkish people to achieve human rights and democracy they will not look to NATO. That was written by a Right-wing ex-Prime Minister who was willing to ally himself with Fascist parties in Turkey. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand the danger to NATO's position of having no standard for human rights or democracy for the people of Turkey?

Mr. Hickmet: Again, I am staggered by the naivety of that question. I remind the hon. Lady that when Mr. Ecevit and Mr. Demirel had charge of that country, it slid towards civil war. Of course, they will try to justify the status quo before the military intervened in a bloodless coup d'etat to save the country from anarchy.
The collapse of Iraq will widen the conflict in the region, and involve the Gulf states, Syria and probably even Saudi Arabia. Within that framework, Turkey is the most stable country in the region. It is also the only Moslem country in NATO. It has a new and democratically-elected Government who support a constitution endorsed by over 90 per cent. of the population. I remind Labour Members who refer to the Council of Europe and Turkey's not being ejected therefrom that those elections were recognised by the Council of Europe as being fair.

Viscount Cranborne: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the party that won the elections was not the party that was generally thought to be supported by the generals?

Mr. Hickmet: It is true that the election was won by the party led by the present Prime Minister, Mr. Özal, and that the party supported by the junta came last. That, surely, was a true expression of the democratic process.
Despite Turkey's strategic importance, there has been a move by the International Left — of which Labour Members are such prime examples—to isolate Turkey from Europe. We should do all in our power to welcome Turkey's return to democracy and to encourage the continuation and expansion of democracy there.
I hope that the British Government are aware of the grave consequences not only for Western security, but for the security of the people of Great Britain, if Turkey should withdraw from NATO. Turkey has stated that if its delegates are not allowed to take their places in the Council of Europe, it will withdraw from the Council. Far more seriously, it has stated that it will also withdraw from NATO. Those who believe that Turkey has no alternative but to remain in NATO should be disabused of that notion. As recently as 1980, powerful forces were at work in Turkey. They wished to see that country non-aligned—or even aligned with the Soviet Union. The bloodless coup d'etat of 1980 took place because of the breakdown of the multi-party democracy, under threat from extremist elements.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has visited Turkey only once. I have visited Turkey nearly every year since my 10th birthday. People there are glad to be free and alive and to know that the country is being run fairly and properly. I ask the Government to ensure that Turkey's delegates are accepted in the Council of

Europe at its next meeting in May so that Turkeys return to democracy can be encouraged and the extremists discouraged.
Turkey has its problems—we all accept that it can be criticised—but it is trying to put its house in order. There has been institutionalised abuse of what we would describe as human rights, but Turkey is trying to put that right. Those who talk about prisoners of conscience, the DISK trial and the Peace Movement should realise that people were prosecuted because of the actions that they took — in the view of the Turkish authorities — to undermine the state.
Anglo-Turkish relations cover matters wider than the internal problems of Turkey. Britain must use its good offices to defuse the explosive situation between Greece and Turkey. To the Turks, the rejection of their application by the Council of Europe is an earnest of the West's intention. The Turks are also influenced by Western attitudes towards the disputes in the Aegean and over Cyprus. Should Greece seek to extend its territorial waters around the 3,000 or more Greek islands in the Aegean from the present six miles, Turkey has said that it will treat that as a casus belli. Such a declaration, which the Greek Government have sought to justify, would ignore the rights of riparian states, provided for under the law of the sea.

Sir Bernard Braine: Nothing in Europe at the moment is more delicate than the relations between Greece and Turkey, both of which are friends and allies of the United Kingdom and essential to our defence. When two proud nations have had—and still have—misunderstandings, I hope that my hon. Friend will not, in his defence of what is happening in Turkey, seek to criticise Greece in any way. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that those two countries will not happily accept arbitration or pressure from outside, but must come together to solve their own problems and, in doing so, strengthen their relations with us. In defending Turkey, I hope that my hon. Friend will not criticise Greece. Somehow or other the friends of both countries must exercise patience, tolerance and understanding.

Mr. Hickmet: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He has a wealth of experience in these matters, which I am bound to respect.
The relations between Greece and Turkey are extremely dangerous for NATO and the Western Alliance. It behoves Britain, because of our special status as an ally of Turkey in NATO and as a partner of Greece in the European Community, to use our good offices to improve relations between the two countries. If we do not, there is a real danger that one or other country will withdraw from NATO.
We know that, just as Greece has established military forces in some of the Aegean islands, Turkey has established an Aegean army based at Izmir. That is dangerous and could lead to conflict unless we are careful. Diplomacy is not an art or an end in itself, but it has a purpose. The British Government are uniquely placed to use their good offices and diplomacy to promote peace and friendship between Turkey and Greece. I urge Britain and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to use aggressive diplomacy to defuse the explosive situation.

Dr. Glyn: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Britain has agreed that there should be a conference between the protective powers. Does he agree that that could be one of the first stages towards agreement?

Mr. Hickmet: It is true that the British and Turkish Governments recognise that the resolution of the problem in Cyprus depends on the inter-communal talks. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in his winding-up speech, will say that the British Government will use their best endeavours to ensure that a resolution of that dispute evolves from the inter-communal talks.
Of course, those who are versed in the yah-boo politics that are practised in inner London councils will try to criticise the Republic of Turkey, but not the Soviet Union. However, Diyarbakir is not Islington, South and Finsbury and eastern Turkey is not north Kensington. Turkey is an underdeveloped country that is progressing towards democracy and freedom under the law. We should do all within our power to help and foster that process.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The House has been treated to a disgraceful series of apologies for the violations of human rights in Turkey. It is offensive to have to listen to the mealy-mouthed hypocrisy that we have just heard from hon. Members who have tried to defend——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly on this subject, but he must not use phrases such as that. I am sure that he can find a phrase that is within the normal conventions of the House. Will he please withdraw the phrase?

Mr. Corbyn: The normal conventions of the House force me to say "mealy-mouthed double standards" that Conservative Members are trying to apply to human rights in Turkey.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentlman is trying to take my point, but that phrase will not do either.

Mr. Corbyn: It is difficult to know what phrase would be suitable on this occasion. Perhaps I might stick to the basic point that Conservative Members have tried to apologise for the actions of the Turkish Government. Those of us who are involved in politics in inner-city areas should not have to apologise for such activities or for the fact that the councils in the areas that we represent have tried to declare solidarity with people who suffer the effects of abuses of human rights in Turkey.
I had the privilege of visiting Turkey last September, some time after my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I was able to see at first hand the conditions under which trials took place. I also heard at first hand of the terrible tortures that are being perpetrated against people who are held in Turkish prisons.
The basic point on which Conservative Members have been lecturing us is that the Turkish Government have good democratic credentials and are set on a path of freedom and greater democracy. I entirely reject that argument. I remind Conservative Members that, since the coup by which the military Government took over, there have been two fraudulent elections. The first was a plebiscite on the introduction of the new constitution.

Before the vote, no one was allowed to criticise or campaign against the constitution. Propaganda in support of it was the only permitted propaganda. Moreover, there was a compulsory ballot, which many people did not regard as secret. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that the Government got a majority.
Conservative Members have also mentioned the 1983 elections and claimed that they were free and democratic. I draw their attention to a statement that several Labour Members made in The Times the day before those elections were held. We said—and we stand by what we said:
The Turkish military regime, under the leadership of former General Kenan Evren, has vetoed 12 of the 15 parties, which wished to take part in these elections. It has also vetoed 40 per cent. of the candidates of the three parties permitted to participate.
Of the 483 independent would-be candidates only 55 received the military's permission to stand. Notably, none of these are from the Kurdish areas.
Moreover, all former democratically elected MPs and leaders of political parties have been banned for five to 10 years, not just from participating in these elections, but from taking part in any political activities.
Nobody refuted the statements that we made then and no Conservative Members are trying to refute them now. It would therefore appear that the argument that the elections have been free is fallacious. There are no free elections in Turkey. Political control rests with the military junta, as it has ever since the coup, and the junta has no plans to change that. The elections were between several Right-wing parties which differed little on any policy. That is what we face, and if Conservative Members want to apologise for it that says far more about them than anything else.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Conservative Members are not claiming that the elections were perfect, free and fair, and we criticise abuses of human rights where they occur, but we are saying that the elections were a great deal better than no elections and that three parties are a great deal better than no parties. Could the hon. Gentleman be a litte more positive in his criticism and stop abusing and criticising mythical statements by Conservative Members?

Mr. Corbyn: It is not possible to change my line of criticsm of what Conservative Members have said, because the basis of their argument is that there have been free elections in Turkey and that it is moving towards democracy. There were not, and it is not. I do not see how we can call Turkey a free country that is moving down a path towards democracy when it has so many political prisoners and people on trial for political offences, and when so many people have been executed since the junta came to power.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury mentioned the trials that are now taking place. I spent a day witnessing one of them. The defendants were accused of membership of an organisation called Dev-yol and the trial took place in an enormous courtroom in Ankara. Several hundred accused were lined up together on benches, and an armed military guard changed every 20 minutes. Two lawyers represented all those people and a panel of high-ranking military officers sat in judgment. One by one the accused were brought forward and asked whether they stood by statements they had made or whether they wished to retract them. In virtually every case they said that if they had made a statement admitting


guilt, it was made under torture or duress. The trial went on and on for days and days and continued for several more months.
It struck me that most of the people on trial were very young and that all of them had been held since the coup without charge until last summer. They had been held for several years in bad prison conditions, many had been beaten up and tortured, they had been denied proper legal representation and then been brought to trial. Is that the sort of democracy with which we wish to be associated? Is that the sort of democratic institution which we wish to applaud and describe as moving down a road to democracy? If hon. Members had seen such trials, they would have been shocked and appalled at the conditions under which they took place.
Since the junta came to power there have been about 1,000 executions. Is that a country that is moving down a democratic road? Should we be applauding and supporting it? Many more executions are due and many more people will be condemned.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am reluctant to delay the hon. Gentleman further, but I am advised that, at most, 50 executions have taken place, not 1,000. Will the hon. Gentleman advise the House from where he obtained his information?

Mr. Corbyn: I quote from information made available to organisations that are working to defend political prisoners in Europe. The information is freely available in Europe from sources within Turkey. The number is their estimation. If the Minister and Conservative Members choose to believe the Turkish Government, it is up to them. The figures they quote are far below the number of deaths, and far below the number of people threatened with execution and charged at present.
The organisation Turkey News and Views, which reports events in Turkey, estimates that 200,000 people are in gaol at present, 45,000 of whom are said to be political prisoners. Those figures were quoted in the United States Senate. Conditions in the prisons are appalling. If the Government were seriously concerned about the position in Turkey and in the countries with which it has relations, they would have protested about those prison conditions and the way in which the trials are conducted.
I hope the House recognises that Turkish people throughout Europe feel strongly threatened by the situation in Turkey. In most cases they are guest workers in European countries and, therefore, regularly face the possibility of deportation to Turkey if no work is available — depending on the law of the country concerned. Many of them would be at great risk as soon as they left the aeroplane, if they were deported to Turkey. When the Minister replies to the debate it would be helpful if he would tell the House about the Government's attitude to applications for political refugee status from political exiles from Turkey and what action the Government are taking to ensure that people do not get deported to Turkey.
The Government should tell the House their attitude about a further two specific areas of policy. The first is the sale of arms to Turkey. Britain has had arms deals with Turkey, and we may well have more in the future. When arms are sold to a country, British Government policy requires that an undertaking is given that the arms will not

be used for external aggression or internal repression, but will be used as part of the country's defence network. Will the Minister assure the House that arms sold to Turkey in future will not be used in the war in Kurdistan, or against political dissidents who do not fit in with the political system? I should have thought that the British Government would not wish to sell arms to a country that would use them against its own people. At present, there is a major war in Kurdistan. Will the Minister assure us that no British arms are being sent to the Government side in that war to murder Kurds?
The second area concerns Cyprus. Earlier in the debate hon. Members mentioned the inter-communal talks that have been taking place in Cyprus. Clearly, what happens in Turkey and the attitude of the Turkish junta to Cyprus is important to those negotiations. Under the 1960 treaty that guaranteed independence for Cyprus, the British Government have a role to play in preserving the integrity and independence of Cyprus from invasion and foreign aggression. The Turkish Government have played no part in that, but they promoted the invasion in 1974 and have now recognised the bogus state of UDI of northern Cyprus. What serious efforts are the Government making to ensure the withdrawal of foreign troops from Cyprus? What pressure are they putting on the Turkish junta to achieve that? The House has debated the terrible circumstances in Cyprus on a number of occasions, and we should continue to debate the issue. An answer from the Government is urgently needed.
While we speak, people are dying in prisons in Turkey because of mass hunger strikes. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that hundreds of prisoners are reported to be on hunger strike in Diyarbakir prison, many of whom are Kurdish and have been on hunger strike for 53 days. Seven prisoners have already died, according to official reports, and I believe that many others are likely to die in the near future unless something is done about them. If the British Government are serious about their relations with a country which they claim is moving down a path to democracy, what are they doing about the many violations of human rights there?
I should have thought that in reply to this brief debate about Turkey the Government might say that, because of the violation of human rights and the aggression of the Turkish junta against the Kurdish people and those who do not fit in with its political system, all arms sales to Turkey will be stopped until the political prisoners are released, that they will oppose the continued membership of the Council of Europe by Turkey because it denies human rights to its citizens, and that they will oppose its membership of the European Community.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Gentleman has spoken at length about human rights. Is he aware that figures accepted after official studies by the Council of Europe show that before the suspension of democracy three years ago 2,000 people a year were being murdered, because of the chaos before the military temporarily took over? Is not the most important human right the right to stay alive?

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman says, "before the military temporarily took over." There is no sign that the military are planning to leave power in Turkey. The job of the British Government is to start campaigns for an end to the violations of human rights in Turkey, to end arms


sales to Turkey, to stop apologising for the regime and to stop bolstering its image abroad in the way that they have. If they value Turkey as a member of NATO, as they do, should they not at least condemn the present violations and show some concern about its overflowing gaols? Indeed, the only economic development in Turkey is the building of new prisons.
The House deserves an answer from the Minister on all those points.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Turks are a brave people. Turkey is a key member of NATO, and is strategically sited between the middle east and Europe on the southern borders of the Soviet Union. The dilemma to which hon. Members have drawn attention is the weight, in terms of British foreign policy assessment, to be attached, first, to those strategic considerations and, secondly, to the human rights violations which are very evident. Following the referendum and the elections in November last year, how will Britain react to the new overtures by the Turkish Government to normalise their relations with the West, especially their bilateral relations with several countries, and their relations with the Council of Europe and the European Community?
Our general criticism of the Government is that they are ever ready to give excessive weight to the security consideration, and to give to the Turks the benefit of every doubt on human rights violations. We note especially that the Government have refused to back those countries which in July 1982 referred human rights violations by Turkey to the European Commission of Human Rights. The Government have opposed the removal of Turkey's vote in the Council of Europe, and welcomed without reservation the flawed and authoritarian constitution of November 1982 and the elections of November 1983. There was clear evidence of intimidation during the referendum, and there are repressive features, including the ban on political activity by trade unions, and the press censorship that was buttressed by the new press law introduced at the end of last year.
In the elections, which were so lauded by Conservative Members, the parties and candidates were vetted, and older politicians were banned from political activity for several years. At first sight, the fact of the elections after three years of military rule is a positive development in what has been the most repressive regime in the Alliance. However, it clearly erects a civilian facade in front of what is still a militarised state. I refer hon. Members to the decree of 4 October last year, which divided the country into eight administrative regions, controlled by appointed governors, which coincide with the army commands in the country.
Public security in Turkey is still under military control and, as my hon. Friends emphasised, the British Government refused publicly to criticise the gross human rights abuses that remain there. Torture and show trials continue. On 15 November last year leading members of the Turkish Peace Association were sentenced to five to eight years' imprisonment, including the president of the Istanbul Bar Association and the president of the Turkish Medical Association. The trial of the trade union —DISK—continues, with people in fear of life sentences since their trials began in 1981. The indictment in that trial

shows peculiar reasoning: that because DISK and its members support state initiatives to end unemployment, and because the Communists want such state intervention, ergo, DISK is a Communist organisation.
Harassment of Turks abroad continues, and we know of the hunger strikes in Turkish gaols because of continuing torture and abuses. We criticise the fact that the Government have provided Turkey with a disproportionate amount of bilateral aid, so that in August last year, when the Turkish Foreign Minister returned from London to his home capital, he expressed appreciation for what he called
the consistent support and understanding Britain has given Turkey for the past three years.
The Labour party's position is different. Labour Members are not one-eyed in relation to human rights abuses. Today I have written to the Soviet leadership in respect of the trial of Olga Medvekova, a peace campaigner in the Soviet Union, and pointed out the violation of human rights in that country. At the same time, the Labour party points out the harassment and imprisonment of those who campaign for peace in Turkey. We do not adopt the one-eyed approach of Conservative Members, who criticise human rights abuses only when they occur behind the iron curtain or in countries which they do not favour.
Labour Members stress the limited significance of the November 1983 elections, which legitimised military rule in Turkey; but we concede that the local elections, which will take place later this month, might have a greater significance because, although only three parties were allowed to participate in the elections last year, a much greater spread of parties will take part in the local elections.
Therefore, the Labour party suspends judgment on Turkey. I know that there are clear pressures by the American Administration on the Government to normalise relations with Turkey. The German and British Governments are likely to accede to that pressure, although only on Wednesday last week the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives insisted that, before further aid is given to Turkey, the President must certify that there will be progress on human rights. Although it is likely that the British and German Governments will yield to pressure from America solely, here, as elsewhere in the world, looking narrowly at security, it is good that the Governments of France, Denmark and the Netherlands are withstanding such pressure.
If we try to normalise relations bilaterally, or within the Council of Europe and the EC, before there is fundamental evidence of changes in human rights — including an amnesty for political prisoners in Turkish gaols—we shall ignore the cries of those in prison, tortured or on hunger strike, and the appeals of those courageous families who are seeking to press the cases of their relatives imprisoned, tortured and abused in Turkey today.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): I start on a note of happy congratulations to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for his good fortune in coming top of the ballot and in choosing the subject of Britain's relations with Turkey.
We have had a useful debate, although it is regrettable that there have not been many hon. Members in the


Chamber, particularly Labour Members, to contribute to the debate. However, that is about as far as I can go with the hon. Gentleman, because, contrary to what I take to be his hopes when he talked about relations between Britain and Turkey, in general those relations are in good repair, as befits a relationship that has lasted for over four centuries. The 400th anniversary of relations between England and Turkey was celebrated only last year. It is right that we should have good relations with an ally in NATO, a fellow partner in the Council of Europe, a member of the OECD and a country with which we share membership of the United Nations.
I come now to what might be called the civil war of Islington, between the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), to see who can most misrepresent the position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Turkey. I have to tell the House, and particularly Labour Members, that Her Majesty's Government have consistently made clear to the Turkish Government our concern about the violations of human rights in that country. That has been made clear time and again from the Dispatch Box, to the Turkish Government and at the highest level.

Mr. Anderson: But never publicly.

Mr. Whitney: If the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) does not consider this to be a public declaration from Her Majesty's Government, his grasp of parliamentary procedure is rather less than I took it to be. The last important occasion on which we made our view known was when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear yet again our concern to the Foreign Minister of Turkey in Stockholm on 19 January. We have made clear our concern about the general abuse of human rights, the problems of Turkish trade unions, the restrictions on the press and the problems in the universities.
However, unlike the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Islington, North— we were not privileged to hear from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), but we have read her effusions after her eight-day visit to Turkey with her hon. Friend —we are more balanced. We have heard a great deal about one-eyedness, but we have never had a more one-eyed view than we have had on Turkey from the Opposition Benches below the Gangway. I commiserate with the hon. Member for Swansea, East. I understand how difficult it is to speak with only a little coterie of his hon. Friends from below the Gangway present on the Opposition side of the House. It was interesting to note the nuances—perhaps they were more than nuances—of the differences of perception between his understanding of the realities of Turkey and the figments of the fevered imaginations of the Left-wing group below the Gangway.
We look at our relations with Turkey in the round and in the interests of the country. We have had some talk about the relationship of the Turkish people to the military Government, but I am glad that all of my hon. Friends who have been able to speak have made it clear—not to those impervious to reason on the Labour Benches, but to all who have listened to this debate and will read it—that the position in Turkey before September 1980 was dreadful, with 20 killings a day, and that about 5,000 Turks were killed before the Turkish military moved in.
We have to understand, and perhaps even in their eight-day visit the Labour Members were instructed, that there

is a special tradition in Turkey stemming from the history of Kemal Ataturk and the Turkish military. There was an intervention by the Turkish military, which even the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was prepared to accept was welcomed by the Turkish people at the time, to put a stop to the dreadful problem. That regime set itself a timetable to return to democracy, to which it has adhered. It conducted a referendum in November 1982 with a 92 per cent. vote in favour and then conducted the elections on 6 November 1983.
We agree that these elections were less than perfect demonstrations of democracy. Here, too, we have explained and expressed our concern about this restriction to the Turkish Government. Nevertheless, unlike those who refuse to see progress, we recognise the progress that has been made. At least the hon. Member for Swansea, East had the integrity to recognise that the municipal elections that are to take place on 25 March are unrestricted and are therefore yet another welcome step on the way back to democracy being taken in Turkey.
My hon. Friends have made it clear in the House that the choice that was exercised by the Turkish people, in a high turnout last November. was real. It was not a perfect choice, and it was not complete, but it was against the strong recommendation of the military regime and it was as a result of a clear expression of the will of the Turkish people that the Motherland party was elected.
The new Government have become heavily involved with the serious economic problems that face Turkey. We hope that soon they will be able to make yet more progress in improving human rights. I hope that even Labour Members will recognise that the present Government have said that they are opposed to any action aimed at reducing basic human rights and freedoms. I hope that there will soon be a recognition by Labour Members— perhaps that is a forlorn hope—of this improvement and some welcome from them that in certain provinces martial law has already been lifted.
We have heard a great deal from the hon. Member for Islington, North about the number of executions. When I challenged him about his number of 1,000 he took refuge in vague references to certain organisations. I hope that he will have the courtesy to write to me and give me stronger support for his extraordinary assertion that there were 1,000 killings in Turkey. Our information, which is carefully and properly assembled, as befits an effective and professional diplomatic service, is that fewer than 50 executions were carried out. and they included executions for common crimes as well as executions for terrorism. It is my understanding that the present Government have conceded that they will not use capital punishment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study that.
The farrago that we heard tonight from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was based on his first visit to Turkey, as he admitted. He speaks no Turkish and spent only eight days in Turkey being escorted by a carefully selected group of friends.

Ms. Clare Short: It would be interesting to know when the Minister last visited Turkey and how long he spent there. Is he aware that people who visit a country are also capable of reading reports? The Governments of France, the Netherlands, Sweden and other countries in Europe are convinced that human rights violation in Turkey is such


that it needs to be reported to the European Court. The Minister's dismissive and belittling attitude shows how much regard he has for human rights in Turkey.

Mr. Whitney: I have the privilege of speaking on 79 countries from the Dispatch Box, and therefore it is not possible for me to visit every one. However, I have the privilege of relying on a well-informed diplomatic service and I react most strongly against attacks launched on the members of the diplomatic service, and in particular on two officers who have had 20 years' experience, who both speak Turkish, and who, unlike the hon. Lady, have no axe to grind. They gave a clear assessment, on which my remarks are based.

Mr. Chris Smith: rose——

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman entertained the House for a good 40 minutes and, given the time that is left, there is no possibility of my allowing him to intervene.
Progress has been made. We attach great importance to the municipal elections that have been announced for 25 March and to the fact that no restrictions are to be applied on the political parties or, as I understand it, on the candidates participating in the elections. The Government therefore applaud the efforts that have been made and hope that progress will continue. Those who are friends of Turkey believe that what Turkey needs is not the carping, one-eyed criticism that we have heard from the Opposition Benches today, but support and encouragement. We believe that that would be good for Turkey and good for NATO.
Time does not permit me to deal with the whole of the Cyprus problem. Another debate would be necessary for that purpose. All I shall say on the subject is that Her Majesty's Government, as has been made clear on a number of occasions, believe that at this stage the best opportunity to make progress is for the United Nations Secretary General to proceed with his efforts. We strongly support those efforts, and look forward to co-operating with him in making further progress.
Difficult problems, of course, face Turkey. There are social and economic problems, but in our opinion the new Government have demonstrated their determination to get on with that job. Those of us who claim to be friends of Turkey, who are allies of Turkey, owe it to our friends —it is in our own interests, too, in that we share the interests of NATO—to take a constructive approach to Turkish problems, to acknowledge when progress is made, and not to fall into the trap which was so conspicuously opened up, with singular lack of success, by the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Islington, North.

Orders of the Day — System-built Houses

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am glad to have the opportunity to open this debate on the defects in system-built houses. I do not intend to press political points, or to allocate political blame for what has developed and for the problems that I believe need highlighting, and have been highlighted in two excellent reports from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I am sure that the Minister for Housing and Construction, who is to reply, is aware of those reports and of the serious problems that exist.
This debate is both timely and welcome. It concerns an important subject and is a major source of concern to everyone. It is a pressing and urgent problem for local authorities, which now have massive repair bills as well as other worries about the suitability of this accommodation. The subject is important also for the people who live in the defective dwellings—rather, I should say suffer in them. It is important, too, for central Government, and has major implications for housing policy. I am sure, also, that the professions and the whole construction industry are concerned.
Our debate today should focus not only on the financial implications of industrialised and system building, but on the way in which we should assess future building methods so that they, too, are not defective. Our debate should focus, too, on how to put an end to the slump, boom, slump, boom pattern of housing investment, which appears to be the major cause of rushing into new housing methods.
We go back to the early 1960s to trace some of the major causes of the system building epidemic. The AMA report, "Defects in Housing Part II—Industrialised and system built dwellings of the 1960s and 1970s", does an excellent job in tracing the role of Government and putting the matter into a political context. Immediately after the second world war, housing was very much on the political agenda. Everyone recognised that a massive house building programme was necessary. Not surprisingly, the traditional building industry could not cope with rapid expansion, and non-traditional methods were seen as a way of rapidly boosting housing output.
Of course, at that time a lot of munition factories were underemployed, and some of them were turned over to house building. Factories that had successfully produced weapons of war were turned over to producing the fruits of peace. Output rapidly accelerated. Not only were more than 150,000 temporary prefabs produced, but by 1955 500,000 permanent prefabs or non-traditional dwellings, as they were known, had been completed. House building targets was the name of the game, and the Conservative Government were re-elected in 1951 with the promise to build 300,000 new houses a year, which must have played a major part in their success. Indeed, to that Government's credit, they reached their target in 1954. That output has never been matched since.
However, with hindsight, there is no doubt that the nontraditional building boom was taken too far and too quickly. Houses were not properly assessed in advance, and they were not monitored after completion. In fact, they have now been found to be defective, and the AMA's first report, which dealt with the non-traditional dwellings of the 1940s and 1950s, estimates that the repair costs of


those dwellings alone would be £5,000 million and, as the Building Research Establishment completes its work on behalf of the Government, and assesses prefabricated reinforced concrete dwellings in particular, the AMA's estimates are gradually being confirmed.
Following that immediate success by the two immediate post-war Governments, the heat went out of the housing debate, and housing slipped down the political agenda. To put the matter crudely, there were fewer votes in it. However, as housing performance declined, housing was allowed, almost unnoticed, to get worse and worse. It is true that there was not such an acute shortage of houses, but there was a backlog of unsatisfactory older properties, and a massive slum clearance programme had to be mounted. However, people had to be rehoused and new households were beginning to emerge even faster.
In the early 1960s, therefore, housing was back on the policial agenda, and both major parties saw the need rapidly to expand housing output. Again, the traditional building industry could not cope, and Governments in the early 1960s looked again for new methods. This time they went for industrial methods and, unlike the earlier nontraditional boom, it meant high-density, high-rise dwellings, which not only subsequently proved defective, but were immediately unpopular with the people who lived in them. Many would say that we simply replaced slums with new slums.
The AMA estimated that 1 million industrialised and system-built dwellings were built, and I very much doubt whether the Government would seriously question that figure. Again, I commend the AMA report for detailing the Government's role in promoting and sponsoring system building. Up to 1964, the Tory Government had a target of 350,000 new houses a year, and from 1964 the Labour Government attempted to reach a target of 500,000 a year. From 1956, the housing subsidy system was used to encourage high-rise dwellings with higher subsidies for the higher they were built. However, the Government's encouragement became far more direct, with housing authorities having to agree housing programmes which included industrialised methods and being set individual targets. In fact, 40 per cent. of all house building was meant to be industrialised by 1970. Authorities using industrialised methods were given higher allocations, and their schemes were given special treatment. Competitive tendering was thrown out of the window, as the Ministry of Housing and Local Government regional officers arranged contracts with large builders.
The role of the National Building Agency, now wound up, was the most disturbing aspect of that period. It was a company that was limited by guarantee, but to all intents and purposes it was a Government agency. The National Building Agency was responsible for appraising those schemes and for advising local government generally about the best methods and practices. It assured local authorities that it had appraised the systems and, in fact, issued 89 certificates as a guarantee that the system was
sound and suitable for a 60 year loan sanction".
In fact, local authorities were specifically told not to carry out their own appraisals as this would be unnecessary duplication. We, of course, know now how poor those appraisals were and how negligent the National Building Agency had been. But does this not also mean that the Government were also negligent and failed in their duty to protect local government as they had promised?
The AMA report has concentrated on the role of the Government. I was pleased to see, however, that it acknowledged that local authorities were not blameless. I have spent a long time in local government myself, and I entirely concur with that view. Some local authorities were too-willing and too-compliant partners in the industrialised building drive. Others were enthusiastic pioneers and were also irresponsible as their enthusiasm seemed to inhibit their common sense. I also suggest that there was a deal of bad practice which pervaded the industry at the time and in which both central and local government was to a greater or lesser extent involved.
Perhaps the AMA could have devoted more time and criticism to the construction industry and the professions. The construction industry was chasing profits. It saw in the new high levels of output a chance to make a killing. It also saw a chance to break the hold of some of the established trade unions and de-skill the whole building process. It was very keen to turn the building industry over to a factory industry which could use more semi-skilled labour. It wanted to get away from work on the building site to work in the factories out of the elements and where they were less dependent upon the vagaries of the weather.
Nobody can tell me that architects do not have a lot to answer for. Architects have always been more concerned with what a building looks like and whether it has a pretty shape and a nice colour rather than how well it works in practice. That was particularly true in the 1960s when they were after making a name for themselves with bold new conceptions that changed the pattern of our cities and were monuments to their own egos.
However, while criticism can be undoubtedly levelled at all agencies and all sections of the building and construction industry, without the positive support, encouragement and sponsorship from the Government there would never have been such a massive explosion of system and industrialised building methods. It could not have happened on anything like the same scale without the hand of Government directing and controlling the drive. It was noticeable that when the Government withdrew their support from the later 1960s onwards the whole movement went into reverse, just as it had done in the mid-1950s after the boom in non-traditional housing methods.
The AMA report brings out clearly how widespread are the defects in a whole range of industrialised and system-buildings. I have no doubt that every hon. Member will have horrific examples, as I have, within their constituencies. It is now commonplace to see stories of multi-million pound remedial works schemes and even demolition of buildings that are only 15 years old.
The AMA says that 10,000 dwellings have already been demolished or are scheduled for demolition. However, I think that that figure is based upon its members' experience and I suspect that throughout the country the figure is probably higher than that. We should be appalled at dwellings being demolished only 10 or 15 years after completion. But perhaps we are so used to it that it no longer rouses us as it should do. The costs are appalling, not simply in monetary terms, but in the misery that is caused to thousands of families.
I want to illustrate the problems by reference to my experience as a former chairman of the housing committee of Wakefield metropolitan district council. Wakefield is a mixture of rural and urban areas, and, despite being about the tenth largest housing department in the country,


it will probably have relatively lower proportions of system-built dwellings. Nevertheless, the numbers are still substantial and virtually every type has given rise to serious problems. I am well aware that' other hon. Members who want to take part in the debate will be able to give examples from their constituencies. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) will be attempting to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as he has many such problems in his constituency.
The problem, as the AMA rightly suggests, is not confined to medium and high-rise dwellings. Several years ago I was alerted late one night by the fact that 16 complete roofs had blown off two-storey houses in the Shinwell estate, at Upton. It was a miracle that nobody was hurt or killed. Those dwellings were built between 1965 and 1967 and eventually we decided to demolish our entire stock of 120. They were, on average, 13 years old.
The dwellings had a low-pitched steel sheeted roof which was evidently not tied on properly to the house walls. But by the time the roofs blew off, the dwellings had already been severely criticised by the tenants. The roofs gave one of the biggest sources of complaint. Because they were low pitched, inadequately ventilated, and steel sheeted, it was almost impossible to prevent moisture going into the roof space, condensing on the underside of the sheet roof and dripping back down into the dwelling. Therefore, when the roofs blew off we were already faced with remedial works, and we considered putting on a traditional pitched roof. However, the walls were of an unusual lightweight framed structure and would not take the weight of a traditional roof. It would have been very expensive to stiffen the structure.
At the same time, we found that the first floors, which were a prefabricated unit, were always flexing and damaging the tenants' decorations, cracking ceilings, and so on. There were numerous other problems, such as rotting window frames because of poor detailing and inadequate wall insulation. The heating system had also been designed especially for the dwellings. It was peculiar and, by and large, worn out. The catalogue of difficulties grew and grew until eventually we decided to cut our losses and demolish the houses.
Those houses were known locally as British Ropes houses because, as I understand it, they were built by that firm in Sheffield. I do not think that British Ropes had a long history of house-building, but it was obviously keen to get in on the system-building act. From the AMA report, it now appears that these houses were known as Building Systems Limited and were given an appraisal certificate. In other words, the Government agency had assured the local authority that the dwellings would last at least 60 years. The local authorities were told not to question that assessment.
What would be the position if the NBA had not been wound up? Indeed, is there any legal liability now attaching to Government? The dwellings which we demolished would have had a current value of £3 million. As it is, the Wakefield district council, which no longer receives an Exchequer subsidy towards its housing revenue account costs, will continue paying the loan debt until the year 2027.
Our experience in Wakefield of high-rise dwellings was not much brighter. I think that every multi-storey block in Wakefield has now been the subject of substantial

structural repairs. A particular problem was the differential expansion between the brickwork cladding and the concrete frame of the multi-storeys. Differential expansion meant that lumps of brick or concrete fell to the ground from 14 storeys up. On each floor, the remedial work included the cutting of an expansion joint between the brickwork and the concrete frame, and then the tying in of the brickwork panels with special stainless steel straps. That work cost more than £100,000 per block. I am assured that the problem of differential movement was known about at the time the dwellings were built, and yet the Government agency that appraised them apparently did not point this out and it was never included in the specification.
Other examples of problems with multi-storeys and indeed some medium-rise dwellings were found even closer to my home in Knottingley and Pontefract. In those cases, it seems that there was inadequate cover to the reinforcement in the concrete and over a period of time the reinforcement had gone rusty and expanded and the external concrete faces had literally blown off. The entire blocks have had to be scaffolded, all the unstable concrete removed and replaced, and new protection given to the reinforcement.
A further example was found with another low-rise system in my constituency under which many houses were built. The dwellings have given rise to continuous problems, including rapid fire spread, which was the subject of many tenant demonstrations and action. A great deal of work has been carried out on these dwellings, including the complete replacement of the flue system, which in many cases was in a dangerous condition. These houses were given an Agrément appraisal certificate by the National Building Agency on behalf of central Government, and they were guaranteed as sound houses.
I have looked a little at the past, and have given examples of the problems that the country faces with this type of dwelling. It is now right to look at what should be done. I know that the AMA has written to the Government, with a request that consideration be given to its report, and that a meeting be held to discuss compensation and other arrangements. I have no doubt that similar representations have come from other quarters. I believe that the Association of District Councils is also concerned about the matter. I am pleased to note that this has at no time been presented on a party political basis. Indeed, the policy committee of the AMA unanimously endorsed the conclusions of the reports to which I have referred. I hope, therefore, that the Government will respond positively today, and subsequently in their discussions with the local authority associations. I hope that the Government will not think it necessary immediately to go on the defensive.
Local authorities naturally want the money to be able to deal with these problems. They need the capital to carry out the repairs. It should be borne in mind that housing investment programmes have been cut back in real terms by more than 50 per cent. in the last four years, with further reductions envisaged for 1984–85, and for the following financial year. It must be asked whether we are going in the right direction in this matter.
However, this is not a problem of capital moneys only. We must ask why local authorities should have to pick up even more loan charges when borrowing on capital money, because the tenants will have to meet these charges ultimately. Nobody can argue that the tenants


were responsible for the schemes in the first place, or for the development of these system-built methods. By and large, the tenants were opposed to them, and have always found it unacceptable to live in such places. Something must be done, therefore, to assist local authority revenue costs. I believe that it is a question of agreeing appropriate compensation levels.
The Government have begun to recognise their responsibilities in relation to non-traditional dwellings, and to compensate tenants who bought their houses and found subsequently that they were defective. I hope that the Government now accept that discrimination cannot continue, and that tenants and public sector owners are equally entitled to have their houses repaired. I emphasise that, if the money is not available, the problem will get worse, and will cost far more in the long term.
However, I do not think that the argument should concentrate on money only. When considering the effort that central Government put into developing and promoting these systems, we must ask what effort is being put into appraising what went wrong, and into developing systems of remedial works. What practical help is being given to public sector owners and, indeed, to private owners? I believe central Government have a great responsibility to apply their minds to sorting out these problems with as much vigour as they demonstrated when they introduced the systems.
It will be patently obvious to all hon. Members that the country is in a housing slump. I know that the private sector house building market is relatively buoyant, but there is inadequate investment in the public sector new-build programmes for which there is still a steady and rising demand, and there are tremendous problems of unfitness and disrepair in the private sector stock. According to the English house condition survey for 1981, unfitness and disrepair are steadily increasing. The public sector stock has all kinds of problems, of which defects in system building are just one. I know of at least one northern authority that, at the present rate of progress, dictated by the housing investment programme allocation, will take another 20 years to improve its pre-war housing stock. One wonders how on earth it will look at anything other than the most urgent problems in the post-war stock.
It should therefore be firmly understood that the cutback in the housing investment programme that has taken place over the last few years is unrealistic, and will result in an upsurge when the housing situation reaches crisis point. There is no doubt that that upsurge will produce all kinds of problems, and it is possible that we will be forced to re-consider system building. Let us therefore step up housing investment to a realistic level to secure housing standards over the long term. This will ensure that the traditional building materials producers can expand steadily, that there is an adequate supply of skilled labour, and that all elements of the construction industry are geared up to an adequate level.
We must also ask whether sufficient time and money is spent in appraising new methods of building, and new components and materials. As an example, the Agrément certificate procedure is very weak, and gives little real assessment of how building will work out in practice. There is virtually no long-term monitoring of buildings. I suspect that we spend more time, money and effort in this country in developing and improving washing machines than in developing and improving houses. The car industry, which does not have such a brilliant track record,

spends a great deal more on prototypes and development work generally. To illustrate the point, I refer to a brochure advertising a system-built method which can compete with timber frames. It suggests that the method competes with timber frames for speed and insulation. The system is now on the market, and available. I wonder how many hon. Members can guess the main component of the new system. It is polystyrene. This already has a Agrément certificate. I should emphasise that I have no way of knowing whether this is the best idea since sliced bread, or whether it is just another half-baked idea—none of us really knows yet it is currently on sale with some sort of official approval. I ask the Government not simply to accept and note the AMA reports, but to take a positive lead in solving the problems, and to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated in future. If the Government fail to do so, I consider that they will be negligent in carrying out their duties.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) for initiating this important debate. I wish to concentrate on one narrow aspect of it concerning the prefabricated, reinforced concrete houses in Southampton.
On 28 October 1983 the Department of the Environment indicated that 1,677 such houses were built in Southampton in the 1940s and 1950s. From the latest figures that I have seen, I believe that that is an underestimate and takes no account of the many houses that have been sold. The latest figures that I have show that there were 178 Cornish unit houses, 102 Unity houses and 284 Wates houses and that, of those, 306 have been sold; and there were 18 Unity flats and 120 Cornish unit fiats.
In Southampton there are 1,680 Reema houses and 672 flats, of which 686 have been sold. That means that there are more than 3,000 units in Southampton, of which about 1,000 have been sold. I have a letter from the assistant director of housing in Southampton dated 9 March, in which he comments on the structural state of these houses and says:
Fortunately, there do not appear to be any serious structural problems with any of the system-built dwellings in Southampton.
That welcome news is confirmed by a letter that I have received about Reema houses from the managing director of Reema Construction, which is based just outside Southampton.
About a year ago that company organised an independent technical survey on two of its houses built just after the war in Romsey. The result of that detailed technical survey was encouraging, the conclusions of which included this comment:
Neither of the two premises examined showed any fault or signs of deterioration of the concrete components and we are informed that none have been reported with 'Reema' houses. The results indicate that structural deterioration of the load bearing in situ concrete will not occur in the foreseeable future. The results indicate that deterioration of the non-load bearing precast panels and precast beams is unlikely. Continued thorough routine maintenance of the properties will, in our opinion, ensure satisfactory performance.
Mr. Johnston, managing director of the Reema company, tells me that to the best of his knowledge there are no faults in Reema houses similar to those found in Airey and Orlit houses and that a large number of people who bought particularly from the council have made representations to him, but that their concern is not with


the condition of the houses, but with the blight that has been put on them by the way in which the issue has been bandied about in the press and the attitude—this is the most serious aspect of the matter—that is being taken by building societies to structurally sound prefabricated concrete houses, on which they are not prepared to lend.
That is the major concern that has been expressed to me by Southampton city council, confirmed by a number of constituents, who have found to their horror in recent months that the Halifax building society has had a policy of saying "A plague on your house" to everybody with a concrete house, regardless of its structural condition. That is a thoroughly irresponsible attitude for a building society to take, for there seems to be much evidence that many of these houses have years of life in them. Speaking for the Reema properties, and not prejudging the report that is to be published later this month, it appears that few problems have been found in those houses and that such problems as there are can be dealt with by maintenance and repair.
I was amazed to learn from the managing director of Reema — who, as I say, had an independent survey carried out on two of his company's houses—that his firm was not approached by the BRE during the six months of its investigation into Reema houses. I am amazed that the Building Research Establishment has not had the courtesy to contact the Reema company—which built the houses and is still in existence—because its report will obviously be of tremendous significance.
The best evidence that exists of what I would describe as the deplorable attitude of the building societies—in particular the Halifax—is contained in a letter which the Halifax sent to the city council saying that it was
unable to consider any mortgage applications or further advances on properties of reinforced concrete construction.
It defines its approach as "cautious". In my submission, this approach is unfair to the owners of these properties —about 1,000 people in Southampton have bought such homes—who are unable to sell them if they wish to do so. If there is ever to be a self-fulfilling prophecy to the effect that in the end everybody will have to sell his house back to the Government or local authority at tremendous public expense, it will be brought about by the blight that is being put on these houses by building societies refusing to lend on them.
I hope that the building societies will develop a policy on the matter. I inquired of the Building Societies Association and was informed that that body had no policy on the subject. I should have thought that a large organisation which operates virtually a cartel in the home ownership market would have formulated a policy by now on this important issue. At present it seems to have a "wait and see" attitude. I am concerned about the effect that this is having on people who, for understandable reasons, want to sell their properties urgently.
I appreciate that a Bill is shortly to be introduced in relation to some defective houses, but what will be the attitude of the building societies after that? The societies should be getting together and saying, "We have funds. We believe in maintaining Britain's housing stock. We shall come forward with proposals to enable the money that we have to be recycled so that properties can, so far as possible, be maintained so that they do not crumble with neglect".
I am concerned about the public expenditure implications of what is involved with so-called defective housing. I implore the building societies to take a positive approach and remove the blight that they have imposed on everybody who bought Reema houses in Southampton or, I gather, anywhere else.
In a statement to the House last November the Minister for Housing and Construction said:
The processes of carbonation and attack by chlorides are likely to affect all prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before 1960. There are about 170,000 such houses in the United Kingdom which were built by public bodies. Approximately 16,500 have been sold, mostly to sitting tenants. —[Official Report, 10 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 422.]
The Reema houses examined by the Yarsley technical centre led to the conclusion that there was no deterioration of the steel reinforcement, that no such deterioration had occurred in 35 years since those buildings were constructed, and that other significant factors affecting the risk of corrosion, such as dampness and carbonated concrete, were not present in the two houses that were examined.
I implore the Minister not to generalise about this whole matter. He will have an opportunity, not only in replying to this debate but when the statement comes in relation to the report on Reema houses, to put the Government's position about the attitude that owner-occupiers should adopt towards houses of reinforced concrete construction. He should say whether they are all blighted or whether some are deteriorating more rapidly than others. It is obvious that any house will deteriorate. The attitude of the building societies towards these houses has, in my view, resulted from some of the generalisations that have been made about the subject.
On Friday the Minister spoke to one of those principally concerned with Reema houses. I hope that when the announcement is made about that company's houses—if it turns out, as the Reema report shows, that not all houses are tarred with the same brush — the Minister will encourage the building societies to adopt a more realistic lending policy towards these houses.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on being lucky in the ballot and his initiative in debating this subject. Such a debate is needed. I suspect that this is the original chickens-come-home-to-roost debate since I have been a Member. That period is not far short of 10 years. I believe that everyone knows the problem. Hon. Members will not so much discuss how we reached our present position but will ask the Government where we shall go from now.
The background to the problem is not unfamiliar. For the past 20 or 30 years, the entire establishment of British politics, the building industry, surveyors and architects have believed that the solution to the housing problem was industrial building. That was the conventional view. I am glad that I am just young enough not to have taken any responsibility for that view. In our urban areas and where there are large concentrations of population, housing has been built which is not waterproof or soundproof and has endless problems with condensation. Some of those houses have fallen down, and some only 15 years old have been knocked down. Those houses are ludicrously expensive to heat. The final irony is that people refuse to live in them, unless they have nowhere else to go.
The House must concentrate on the scale of those problems. I believe it is an historical fact that the revival of the Liberal party in some urban areas can be traced to the fact that its members were the first publicly to admit that this type of housing provision was a problem. I suspect that some of the establishment in our urban centres knew that this was a problem but were too embarrassed to admit that they were involved in the original decision.
The Government's response during the past four or five years will not solve the problem. Since 1979–80, the housing investment grant has been reduced by 40 per cent. The problem will not be solved by reduced expenditure. What do the Government intend to do, given the problems? I have read the requests to the Government of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I should have thought the AMA was being a shade optimistic in hoping that the Government would commit themselves to meeting some of its requests. A percentage of the AMA's requests must be acceded to if we are to overcome this problem. The AMA proposes that the Government take over existing loan debts on demolished dwellings. I believe that the Government should take over some of that debt, but an open-ended commitment, as argued by the AMA, would encourage local authorities to knock down blocks of flats even faster. We must recognise that the Government should take on at least a portion of the loan debt on those properties which, inevitably, must be demolished. That must occur if we are to make a serious contribution towards solving the problem.
To date, Government action revolves around the discovery of the tragedy of Airey built houses. The Government have made some response, thereby recognising the problem and contributing to its solution. Their response has been narrower than I would argue for, but at least it is an initial action. Local authorities which sold Airey homes, and those included in the umbrella of that description, might need to buy them back or provide repair grants to the individuals who purchased them. As far as it goes, that is a fairly satisfactory response, but it begs more questions that the Minister must answer if we are to move forward.
What about the properties still owned by the councils? Those houses comprise the vast bulk of the grand total. That is not an insignificant number. What about the properties which were never owned by the councils? There are a number of those properties in the south-west region, and other hon. Members can probably point to similar properties in their home areas. I was pleased at the Government's response, but it is not sufficient. The Minister should tell us how much further he wishes to go.
The Cornish unit houses are the most prevalent in my area, as hon. Members may not be surprised to hear. They were prefabricated mainly within my constituency by the large English China Clays company. I do not believe that those houses are as bad as some reports have made out. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) that, in many ways, the largest problem with some of these houses — we must stop the umbrella description of calling all those houses Airey houses—is the building societies' attitude. Individuals have come to me raising certain complaints. On visiting their homes I have been told that architects and those who can make a judgment on this matter have said that the houses, which are in reasonable condition, are condemned, not because of their structure but because of the building societies' attitude. I regret the fact that the building societies do not

have a pooled system of information whereby they can make a collective judgment on this matter. I am not certain that I want the building societies to act as a blanket, because then building societies generally would pass all buildings or condemn them all. An individualistic approach must be developed so that buildings are inspected and considered on their individual merits. Properties then would not be put on the black side or red side of the line, as building societies tend to do. Problems occurred—they may still do—when building societies in effect drew a line around certain houses and said that no money would be lent on those properties. The Minister should encourage building societies to adopt a more thoughtful and better response to this problem and to deal with the real problem, not the problem suggested by emotion because of publicity.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is my hon. Friend aware that another problem is that the building societies take a cautious view about houses similar to Airey houses but which do not suffer the same defects? The result is that some people, including elderly couples, who wish to move out of their homes because they can no longer cope can neither sell them on the open market nor, because of the problems between local authorities and the Department of the Environment, sell them back to the local councils. Those people are stuck. Some of my constituents are paying a mortgage and a rent because they are in that position. That point illustrates the cautiousness of the building societies.

Mr. Penhaligon: That was an interesting observation. That particular problem has not been brought to my attention, but I hope that the Minister will add it to the problems he will consider when he replies or in correspondence. I recognise that some of these problems are complex. I do not underestimate their importance. They require a carefully thought out departmental response.
I am fortunate in that I live in a part of the country which is not surrounded by great tower blocks of flats, where the largest and insurmountable problems are created. I appeal to hon. Members not to turn this debate into an argument about who is responsible—the local councils or central Government. Both should make some contribution towards the responsibilities, as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford said. That is an academic argument and a pointless dispute. It wastes our time and exploits people's misery, and that would not make a useful contribution to the debate or a useful line for the Government to follow.
The magnitude of this incredible tragedy faces us. Somehow we have managed to perpetrate and impose this problem on the great mass of people who live in the urban areas. My question is simple but involves expense. We do not want the Minister to talk around the point. Given the tragedy in the urban areas which will be outlined by hon. Members, which was reported by the AMA and which anyone with two eyes in his head can see, the question is: what will the Government do? They are the only people with the resources that the problem will demand. Action is clearly required. The sooner we get on with it the better.

Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr.


Lofthouse) on initiating the debate, which is of tremendous importance to many local authorities which are facing problems with prefabricated and system-built houses. There is a national problem of substandard, decaying prefabricated dwellings, but, unfortunately, the only answer that we have received from the Government has been substandard and prefabricated.
The vast majority of the houses involved are in the public sector. They were built with the active encouragement of the then Government, of whatever political colour. Local authorities were persuaded to build houses by the National Building Agency — a Government-sponsored body — and it was guaranteed that they would provide homes which would last for 60 years. Local authorities were forced to borrow money over a 60-year period to build them. The building systems approved by the Government were defective, the buildings are deteriorating and some of them are structurally dangerous. At one time the phrase used to be, "As safe as houses". Some of my constituents who are living in old houses feel that the phrase should be changed to, "As safe as the Titanic," or, to use a more up-to-date metaphor, "As safe as the Belgrano".
My local authority has decided to demolish 150 of these latterday slums. It has been forced into that action following a thorough examination of the structures. The local authority will have to rehouse the tenants, which means that the 7,600 families who are already on the council waiting list will have to wait a great deal longer to obtain a council house. As the Government have seriously curtailed the finance available for new house building, the future for housing applicants is bleak.
The Government have recognised that there is a problem, and in October last year they recognised the problem as urgent and promised a statement. The statement has been made, and a statutory duty was placed upon local authorities to provide assistance. The Government recognised the difficult position brought to light by various structural surveys. The Government's intention is to introduce a scheme of assistance at the earliest possible opportunity. So far so good. Those are praiseworthy intentions, but the Government have failed to provide assistance to fulfil those measures, promises, assurances and good intentions for those who live in public sector houses. Ninety per cent. of people who live in prefabricated, system-built houses live in local authority dwellings. Unfortunately, they can expect little from a Government who have slashed housing expenditure and forced local authorities to increase rents and waiting lists.
It is significant that, for the first time, the amount of subsidy given by way of tax relief on mortgages exceeds the total national housing investment allocation programme. On 10 November last year, the Government said that they would take into account the problems local authorities faced with prefabricated dwellings when they determined the HIP allocation for this year.
My local authority owns 2,500 prefabricated houses, but the most pressing problem concerns 390 Orlit houses. The Government have promised that those who have bought their houses will be assisted. However, of the 390 old houses in south Tyneside, only 12 have been purchased. The remaining 378 households will have to wait to see how the Government will take their problems into account. How much will the local authority receive

as an additional HIP allocation to deal with the problem — £1 million, £2 million or £3 million? South Tyneside's HIP allocation was cut by over £1 million this year.
When tenants come to my surgery, how can I explain to them the way in which their problems will be tackled when the local authority, with all its other problems, does not have the resources available to do anything about Orlit houses? None of the other housing problems in south Tyneside has declined so as to enable the local authority to deal with the problem of prefabricated system-built houses. The council's HIP allocation is overstretched. It is barely adequate to deal with the maintenance of the council's stock of traditional houses. It cannot keep pace with providing even a limited number of houses for those in greatest need.
I have no doubt the Minister will tell us that we should use our capital receipts. South Tyneside has already used its capital receipts. For 1984–85, it has decided to use £3 million of its capital receipts to supplement the miserable HIP allocation that the Government have decided it can have. Rents this year will increase by £2 a week and rates have been increased by 15 per cent., yet the Government will say, "Sell more houses." How can south Tyneside sell more houses and obtain more capital receipts when 40 per cent. of council house tenants are on rent rebate and cannot afford to pay the rents, let alone to buy their houses?
If the present proposals for a 60 per cent. discount on the sale of council houses goes through, it will mean that the south Tyneside local authority will require £4 million if it decides to demolish the 150 Orlit houses. That is equivalent to selling 600 traditionally-built houses. That is the nonsense that we are hearing. That is the problem that we face in south Tyneside.
The Government's approach to the problem is bad enough, but it does not make economic sense when our area has 25 per cent. unemployment. That is almost as high as the unemployment in the present Cabinet. Skilled construction workers —those who can lay bricks, put roofs on houses and dig out foundations—are out of work. There are 7,600 families waiting for houses, and it is nonsense to say, as the Government have said, that the local authority cannot have the resources and capital to build houses.
Out-of-work skilled construction workers are commiserating with their friends who live in council houses. They say that it is hard lines that they have cracked ceilings, bulging walls and streaming condensation, but the Government will not provide the money to enable them to work and make the houses fit to live in.
During the past decade, south Tyneside has approached the borough's housing problem with thought and vigour. Before 1979, the Government made the resources available to the local authority. South Tyneside demolished 3,800 slums and built new houses. It is now faced with the problem of ill-conceived, ill-designed and badly constructed prefabricated houses. That is the fault not of the local authority, but of the then Government.
It is about time that the Government accepted responsibility and provided the resources for the local authority so that it can put those problems right. If the Minister cannot make a direct grant, he should make the capital resources or subsidies available, and allow the local authorities to put right their problems by rehousing and providing decent houses for the people that they represent.

Mr. Steve Norris: As other hon. Members have done, I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) for raising this important subject.
I draw the Minister's attention to the problem of the Howard type of system-built house, of which there are several hundred in my constituency, particularly on the Rosehill and Barton estates. The correspondence that I have had with the Minister's Department shows that that type of house is not considered to be in the same category as those that have been examined by the Building Research Establishment. However, I should like to draw the distinction to the Minister's attention, because it is a fine distinction, and the damage to the reputation of those houses is as great as the damage to the reputation of the Airey, Orlit and the other houses that have been mentioned.
Apparently the difference between the Howard house and the Airey house is that, whereas the Airey house has reinforced concrete cross members acting as main supports, the Howard house has a steel frame that is sunk into a concrete plinth. As a result, the Howard house shows many of the symptoms of damage to which system-built houses are prone. The Oxford city council has put together a considerable report, with plenty of evidence of damage to those houses. I understand that some local authorities elsewhere have pulled them down on the basis that it was simpler to clear the site than to spend the considerable amounts of money that might have been necessary to put them back in order.
In his statement the Minister accepted that some houses, if not beyond repair, fell into the category for which he felt the Government should take responsibility. Like those houses, the Howard type was built at the end of the war. Those houses are very much system-built. They display all the symptoms of system building to which hon. Members have referred.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). Whether for right or wrong reasons, certainly in respect of owner-occupied houses, building societies are not making the distinction which in a perfect world they should draw, but which it is not unreasonable for them not to draw. They believe that system-built houses are not attractive for mortgage lending. In Oxford it has become extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain assistance from building societies for these houses. That means not so much that houses cannot be bought, but that they cannot be sold. Those who wish to move up or down the scale, for whatever reasons, cannot do so.
It has been suggested that purchasers in that situation should remember the doctrine of caveat emptor, on the basis that they had an opportunity to examine the properties that they were buying before they completed the purchase, but I do not believe that that advice necessarily holds in this case. In many instances the local authority itself provided the finance for the purchase, so the entire transaction was in the hands of the local authority.
Normally, if a purchaser were buying property at arm's length, a survey would be done and he would be able to look at the survey. The vendor would then be able to say, "I am sorry. You had every opportunity to inspect the dwelling, so I am not responsible for faults that may

subsequently arise." However, in this case the council virtually acted as both vendor and purchaser. Thus, new owners were denied some of the knowledge that they might have received had they been in a normal situation. That factor must be considered, as well as the general principle which I was pleased the Minister accepted. As the Government have encouraged purchasers to buy those houses — I naturally support the Government's efforts, particularly those of the Minister in that regard—that lays an extra duty on local authorities and the Government when faults are discovered.
Owners in my constituency are faced with a particular problem. They will not qualify for a mandatory grant, according to the latest advice that I have received from the Department. They may face the prospect of a discretionary grant, but my local authority has not evinced any great enthusiasm for making such grants. I say in all honesty that I am not surprised at and do not blame the local authority for taking that attitude. It is hard pressed for funds and there is no evidence that it is likely to be compensated in full for the discretionary grants that it gives. The distinction between "mandatory" and "discretionary" seems to disadvantage some classes of purchasers who, it is admitted, suffer the same problems as those who are covered by mandatory grants but, on a technicality, cannot claim the grants in full. I urge the Minister to reflect on that problem if he cannot give an answer in the debate. I ask him to reflect on the potential inequity for owners of such property.
If we do not tackle the problem honestly and squarely and ensure that there is equity on all sides for owners of such property, owner-occupiers will lose confidence in the Government, which would be a tragedy. They would lose confidence in the very Government who rightly gave them the opportunity to buy those properties and a right which we want to extend and which the general public want to see extended. It would be tragic to cast a shadow over that and to discourage people because of the difficulties that owners in my constituency face.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on initiating this debate on non-traditional housing. He referred to the fact that there is a substantial problem in Leeds. I shall illustrate that problem further in my speech.
My hon. Friend was right to set the debate in a certain context and to say that the pressure for system-built housing came from the Government. Local authorities responded to it, some with greater enthusiasm than others. That pressure came from Governments of both political parties. The Minister of Public Building and Works said in July 1963:
My ministry is now specifically charged with the responsibility for encouraging and developing generally the use of new and rapid methods of construction, standardising the use and production of building components to the greatest possible extent and securing the widespread dissemination of the best modern practices.
Those words were said by a Conservative Minister in 1963. Two years later the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in circular 21/65, made exactly the same points. It asked for greater weight to be given to nontraditional housing methods. So great was the pressure that it said in conclusion that unless the non-traditional methods were used,


housebuilding programmes would have to be set lower than they should be.
The pressure from central Government on local government was to use industrialised non-traditional building methods. That pressure should be recognised by the Government. Local government responded to it, but it was the Government who pushed local authorities towards the use of non-traditional methods. My own city of Leeds responded with great enthusiasm to that pressure. It saw in non-traditional building the opportunity to get rid of the major back-to-back problem in the city. It was seen as an opportunity to clear slums and provide attractive housing for families. So great was the enthusiasm that 15 per cent. of the current stock of 94,000 dwellings were constructed by non-traditional methods, mostly of prefabricated reinforced concrete but some with timber frames.
The legacy of the 1960s housing policy is clear enough. About 13,000 houses in Leeds may suffer from serious structural defects and the occupants live in fear that their houses are unsafe as well as in conditions which are often unsatisfactory due to draughts, condensation and so on.
If the local authority assumed responsibility for repairing all 13,000 houses, the cost would be astronomical, even assuming a modest figure of £8,000 per house. Some say that that is too modest. The Shelter report referred to £16,000 per house. Nevertheless, taking the figure of £8,000 which the local authority uses as the cost of repairing an Airey house, the repair programme will cost the ratepayers of Leeds a staggering £104 million.
Those figures must be seen in the context of regular Government cuts in the housing investment allocation in recent years. For 1984–85 Leeds will receive about £28 million. How can the authority possibly assume responsibility for repairing 13,000 potentially defective houses at a cost of £104 million? The scale of the problem becomes apparent when one compares the HIP allocation and the cost of repairing Airey houses. Given the present allocation, it will take Leeds 15 years to repair the Airey houses alone, without starting on other prefabricated concrete or timber-frame houses. The problem is especially severe in Leeds, but it occurs in many other areas.
The response to our difficulties is typical of the Minister and the Government — indifferent and uncaring. The Minister tells us that the HIP allocation includes provision for dealing with problems of this type. That is typical of a Government utterly unconcerned about housing standards throughout the country, as the successive cuts in the allocations have shown. With the money provided by the Government through the HIP allocation, it will take 50 years to deal with defective housing in Leeds alone. By then, many of the houses will have fallen down, so the problem will have disappeared — no thanks to the Government, but due to their inactivity and uncaring attitude. It may be suggested that we should spend more of the HIP allocation or even the entire £28 million on repairing these houses, but that would be at the expense of modernisation and new building in the city and it takes no account of the fact that in the 1980s Leeds still has 20,000 back-to-back houses. It is a scandal for any Government to be happy or complacent about such a situation.
What help have the Government given? Reference has been made to the help provided for owners of Airey houses. That has caused various problems, not least

because it extends only to a limited number of properties. Other owner-occupiers who have been persuaded by the Government's policies to buy system-built council properties will receive no assistance at all.
Hon. Members have referred to the attitude taken by building societies. I have had correspondence with Mrs. Hudson, who lives on the Osmandthorpe estate in my constituency. Having bought her council house with a local authority mortgage, she applied to the Leeds Permanent building society for funds to build an extension. She filled in all the forms, but when she said that it was a cast-built timber-framed house the building society said that it was not prepared to touch the business and could not provide a loan on such property. Mrs. Hudson wrote to me as follows:
I was astounded at this information. When I asked Leeds Permanent what would happen if I decided to put my house on the market I was informed that any prospective buyers would be unable to receive a mortgage for this type of property.
Under the influence of the Government and the Minister, Mrs. Hudson had decided that it was sensible to buy her council house. The Government talk about helping owner-occupiers. I doubt whether Mrs. Hudson sees it that way now.
Several of the Conservative Members who have been prepared to take part in the debate have tried to put the blame on the building societies, but would they risk other people's money on system-built housing if they were building society managers? I suspect that they would not. Mrs. Hudson and many thousands like her want a guarantee from the Government that a safe and effective system will be devised and funds made available so that these houses can be safely repaired and the owners can then go to the building society secure in the knowledge that they can sell their houses and use their assets.
The assistance scheme for Airey houses discriminates in two other ways. It discriminates totally against people living in council houses. Help is provided for the owner-occupier but not for the council tenant. That sums up the Government's philosophy. They discriminate in simple class and status terms. It is not a question of standards. Tenure is the issue for the Government. If they were really concerned about people living in Airey homes, they would not confine assistance to owner-occupiers and exclude council tenants who suffer equally in such accommodation.
Another problem in the Airey scheme is especially clear in Leeds. The Leeds public works department—not, I suspect, a cause close to the Minister's heart—devised a scheme to repair Airey houses to an acceptable standard at a cost of £8,000 per house. If, however, the council repairs a house which it still owns in a semi-detached block of two, the present regulations do not allow it to take the responsibility of repairing the other house for the owner-occupier. The council cannot repair the other house. Is not that ridiculous? The public works department devises a system. The owner-occupier may have to use that system. The tenant can make use of it, but, because of the ideology and dogma of the Government, the owner-occupier cannot make use of it because the service will be provided from the public sector. The Airey scheme presents problems over the question of who is to do the work and over the discrimination against council tenants. Furthermore, the number of owner-occupiers is tightly defined, so that the benefit is limited and is not provided to all who live in system-built houses.
A number of hon. Members have suggested that this burden should be assumed by central Government. It was created by the activities of central Government and the pressures that they have applied.
What should be done? Unless the Government grasp their responsibility, there will be a deterioration in housing standards and those who live in system-built houses will be impoverished. First, there should be a commitment from the Government to finance a programme to repair system-built houses. The programme must be financed outside the normal HIP allocation. That is the only way in which Leeds could deal with its problems of defective housing. Furthermore, such a programme might help to provide work for the construction workers who are currently on the dole.
Secondly, the Government should finance research by the Building Research Establishment to find repair methods that are acceptable to the building societies, so that the building societies will make loans available to owner-occupiers and to those who wish to extend or to modernise their houses.
There is an overwhelming and proven case for Government assistance in relation to defective housing. There is a specific case in Leeds. I look to the Minister to help the tenants, owner-occupiers and ratepayers of Leeds. I realise that, in making this plea, I may be following a sterile path, but the people of Leeds will be waiting for the Minister's response, and I urge him to take action to end the misery and the potential impoverishment caused by this type of housing.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I join many hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) for giving us the opportunity to debate defective housing. My hon. Friend, like me, comes from a mining area. I have no doubt that his area contains housing of the type that exists in Rother Valley—namely, Reema housing. There are many hundreds of such dwellings in my constituency. Indeed, for 14 years I lived in one.
Because of the National Coal Board's policy of selling houses to employees or to those occupying its houses, hundreds of my constituents have bought such houses. They sought to take advantage of the discount offer of 50 per cent. on the current market price. Those of my constituents who are now trying to sell those houses—in order, in some cases, to move into better properties—have found that they are unable to do so.
Conservative Members have claimed that the building societies are nasty and wrong to refuse to grant mortgages on those houses. It is all very well to blame the building societies, but we should remember that in November 1983 the Minister for Housing and Construction, making a statement on defective housing, said:
The processes of carbonation and attack by chlorides are likely to affect all prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before 1960."—[Official Report, 10 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 422.]
The Minister explained that there were about 170,000 such houses, of which about 16,500 had been sold. In using such phrases, the Minister hardly gave a stamp of approval to system-built houses. Perhaps it is not surprising that the building societies should be reluctant to give mortgages to those who are still willing to buy such houses.
What do the Government propose to do about the situation created in my constituency and in many others?

We have been waiting now for four months for a further statement from the Minister. It is four months since he put the cat among the pigeons. What type of legislation is envisaged? When will it be brought before the House? When will people be able to benefit?
There are urgent cases in my constituency. There are people who cannot afford to maintain their houses, but they cannot sell them. I am in contact with a solicitor in my constituency about a house on the estate on which I used to live. The owner is unable to sell it. The matter is in the hands of a solicitor, but he is at a loss to know what to do. Two people have attempted to get mortgages on the house, but they have been refused.
I hope that the Minister will regard this as a matter of urgency. It is four months since his statement and no legislation has yet been introduced. Meanwhile, people are suffering hardship.
What is the position of the local authorities and of the National Coal Board, which either own or have sold such houses in my constituency? My constituents fear that they have been sold a pup by the National Coal Board. Can the Minister put their fears at rest? Nothing can be done unless the Government move quickly.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has done a service not only to the House but to millions of our constituents by raising the subject of system-built housing. I hope that the comments that have been made about the general problem of housing in so many areas will not have been completely unheard by the Minister.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities recently issued two reports. One was entitled "Defects in Housing". Part I of the report dealt with non-traditional dwellings of the 1940s and 1950s. It pointed out that there were half a million such dwellings in the country and that it would cost £5 billion to repair them.
On 10 November 1983, the Minister for Housing and Construction said that the Government intended to give financial assistance to private purhasers of seven types of non-traditional dwellings bought from the public sector which were discovered to have defects. However, not seven, but 150 types of non-traditional dwelling have been constructed during the past few decades.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to defects in the Truscan RD27 low-rise system. I have recently tabled two questions to the Minister on this subject. Fewer than 700 such houses have been built in this country. In a sense, therefore, the problem is not quite as extensive as with other non-traditional buildings.
The problem of 18 houses in Storrington avenue in my constituency has come to my notice. They can hardly be described as timber-framed as they look more like timber houses. They have occasionally been referred to as Swedish-style houses. They are built in two terraces. The two support walls are timber in a configuration known as cross-wall construction. The internal walls appear to be plywood. They were built in 1959. A recent survey found severe wet rot in several of them. There are clear signs that almost all of them are now affected. The wet rot allows the penetration of water into the interior. It comes in over the windows of several rooms in most of the houses, and the damage to the exterior timber is obvious to anyone who


walks along the avenue. It is possible to see the black telltale marks of wet rot, although the houses are set back from the main road. If they were in a better area, they would be described as being in an ideal location as they are not overlooked and have views over the playing fields at the back.
Weather penetration of the timbers is causing doors to warp so that they do not close properly. The houses are therefore not secure. Moreover, the houses are in an area in which break-ins are not unknown. In some cases the damage to the panelling is so bad that daylight is visible through the walls. The houses are wet and draughty and must endanger the health of the inhabitants. I am informed by the chief fire officer of Merseyside that the fire authority requires no certificate, although I suspect that the houses could be a serious fire risk. I understand that only at the request of Liverpool city council would the Merseyside fire authority carry out an investigation.
Although most of the houses are tenanted and the local authority has promised to carry out extensive refurbishment soon, the fact remains that three former council tenants have purchased their homes and sales activity has commenced in four other cases. I understand, however, that the four other tenants might now be having second thoughts. If they took my advice, they would never consider buying their houses.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, many people have been encouraged to buy their houses by the Government's council house sales policy. I oppose the sale of council houses in areas of real housing need. Liverpool has 29,000 unmet housing needs. Most of those people subsist on supplementary benefit and will never in a month of Sundays receive a positive response from a building society if they ask for a mortgage. However, that is not my reason for saying that it is damnable for anyone to expect people to buy the houses in Storrington avenue. They stand a great risk of never being able to sell their houses, as I cannot believe that any reputable building society will advance a mortgage for them.
I know that, like the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris), we could tell our constituents to bear in mind the words "caveat emptor", but the seven households who have or are considering buying their homes have found that the negotiations have been carried out by the local authority. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) mentioned similar cases in his constituency. The local authority has sold and provided the finance for the purchase. It seems less than just that such local authorities might be left with the grant aid that the Minister envisaged when he spoke about future legislation on 10 November 1983. I hope that the legislation will not restrict assistance to people who have purchased. It should consider also tenants of system-built or non-traditional houses. The Minister should also examine carefully the cases of people who live in Truscan RD27 property.
Liverpool city council has properly claimed that it is under no obligation to people who have bought their homes. Responsibility now lies with the owner-occupiers. The council regards itself as having only limited statutory obligations towards people who have applied to purchase their homes, and therefore appeals by such people to the local ombudsman have brought no joy. I ask the Minister

to carry out a fuller investigation with a view to giving some redress to sufferers of the system that I have described.
Some of the points that have been raised today might be the subject of a more substantial debate at another time. Areas such as Liverpool suffer enormous social distress, and it is no answer to the legacy of high-rise flats, such as the infamous piggeries, to sell them off to private enterprise which then provides homes for people who can afford to buy. A Minister attended the opening of Myrtle gardens in Liverpool. That development was refurbished by a private firm and sold to people who could afford to buy. That might be all right for the leafier areas of the country that are perhaps best known to Conservative Members. The Minister represents Eastbourne. It may be that few of the problems that I have described occur there.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible to buy a council house in the city of Nottingham for less than the cost of renting it? It is erroneous for the hon. Gentleman to talk of buying houses in the leafier glades of the country.

Mr. Wareing: The hon. Gentleman has a point.
There is great suspicion in Liverpool that the Government's policy of forcing higher rents on council tenants will make many of them think about buying when they would never have thought about it before. Many people in my constituency, during the general election campaign, rushed on to the streets to tell me that, although they were now owner-occupiers of council houses, they would still vote for me because half of their families had been made unemployed by the Government's economic policies.
I agree that, because rents in Liverpool are higher than anywhere else outside London, there may be an impulse to purchase. However, few building societies will offer mortgages to the 140.000 people on Merseyside who are now without jobs, and, in many cases, have been for over 12 months.
Liverpool is well known for its two great cathedrals.

Mr. Fatchett: And its two football teams.

Mr. Wareing: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central, who comes from a city of no mean soccer repute, should comment on our football teams.
Liverpool spent well over 70 years building an Anglican cathedral—a beautiful edifice. I wish only that we had exercised the same care—not over 70 years, of course—building the houses in which we expect our citizens to live.
It is of no use considering the matter by examining statistics. Therefore, I make the same offer to the Minister as I made to the Secretary of State for the Environment —to come to Liverpool and see the housing conditions, not simply by driving down the main road, but by stopping and getting out of the car. I shall be only too happy to escort him round some of the problem houses and flats in my constituency. Some months ago the Minister sent me a letter, in which he noted that the sister of one of his constituents lived in my constituency in a low-rise flat surrounded by flats which were entirely empty because of lack of maintenance.
I must not omit to point out that in Liverpool, which is being pilloried and penalised by the Government under


the rate support grant, the council has designated 17 priority areas for rehousing. It is making a great endeavour to do what the Liberal party, when it had control in the city, failed to do — namely, to let houses and flats quickly as they become vacant. Nevertheless, 5,000 dwellings are empty. Yet many people are on the housing waiting list. It is clearly time for the Government to tackle the problem, but it cannot be tackled without finance.
In the past, Governments have written off the debts of nationalised industries. The time has come for cities, such as Liverpool, which have grave housing problems and huge housing debts, to have those debts written off. There should be a new system of finance, which does not depend on high interest rates, to ensure that people have a proper standard of housing. Most people in Liverpool pay high rents because of the high interest on dwellings which have recently been built. People who have lived in council accommodation for 40 or 50 years now pay the highest rents to finance the interest on loans for houses which have been built recently. Many of those dwellings have been built on the low-rise and high-rise non-traditional systems which we are debating.
Will the Minister consider carefully what has been said? Will he look at the actual buildings, not simply the plans? Will he come and see the houses about which I have spoken and ask himself whether he would buy such a dwelling?

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I apologise to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and to other hon. Members for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I was detained elsewhere.
A Swiss gentleman named Corbusier conceived the concept of the radial city high-rise blocks and apartments surrounded by open fields. He suggested the concept in the 1930s and we became seduced by it in the 1960s. One development only was built strictly following his lines. It was built in Marseilles and was known as the unite d'habitation. I apologise for my French. A distinguished architect told me this afternoon that even that development is being converted.
In Nottingham we became seduced by the concept in the 1960s and, with the support of Governments of all parties, we embarked on two developments, with disastrous consequences. In 1966 we started the Balloon Woods development, which was completed in 1970. It is a medium-rise, system-built development. It must now be demolished and was emptied only last year because of defects found in the concrete. The contract for its demolition has just been signed and demolition will start soon.
The second development became known as the Basford flats. They were started in 1967 and completed in May 1971. Again it was system-built, but, unlike Balloon Woods, its problems are terrible humidity, water penetration and, as a result, high heating costs. We have great difficulty in letting the high-rise blocks in the middle of the city, which is not used to such accommodation. About two years ago we emptied one of the blocks and allowed Wimpey to carry out tests on its structure to see whether it could be rehabilitated. That proved to be impossible and it seemed that the whole site would have to be demolished. Like the Balloon Wood site, demolition will go ahead and is due to start soon.
Hon. Members should be wary of condemning totally the concept of high-rise flats as an unacceptable way in which to live. When the problem was faced in New York, the authorities there, instead of walking away from the problem and demolishing the block, plastered all the staircases, laid carpets, fitted brass handrails and introduced a security system at the entrance. It has turned out to be a success. Vandalism has stopped and people are happy to live there again.
In the city of London people live happily in the Barbican high-rise blocks, primarily because they are of higher quality and have a good security system.
The problem in Nottingham is what to do with the land that will be vacated when we demolish those two sites. The citizens of Nottingham are disappointed that the sites must be demolished, because Nottingham is a city with a ring of confidence about it. Unlike many cities, people wish to live in its inner areas. It cannot sell new homes fast enough. There are three new housing developments in the heart of the city that have been constructed with the aid of urban development grants, and I was told the other day that one development is completely sold out even before it has been completed. Those developments are a classic example of the success of urban development grants.
Why do people want to live in the middle of Nottingham? It has excellent theatres and facilities, and it has two first division football teams, although one of them was knocked out of the cup on Saturday by Everton. The spirit of the city is highlighted by the fact that it produced two people who won gold medals at the winter Olympics —Torvill and Dean. During the decades, both Labour and Conservative-controlled councils have pursued moderate housing policies. However, I fear for the future of the city, because the dead hand of the ultra-Left wing of the Labour party is now at work in the council. A minority of councillors have taken control and unacceptable policies are being imposed upon the ratepayers.
It is accepted by all parties on the council that the two sites to which I have referred will be replaced with two-storey, good quality accommodation. The question is, who will pay for it? The Labour-controlled council is refusing to apply for an urban development grant because it wants to retain the sites for council housing. That means that the ratepayers must bear the entire cost, and the council is putting forward——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are debating defects in local authority system-built housing. I hope that he will relate his remarks more closely to that subject.

Mr. Ottaway: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to draw attention to what will replace the defects in accommodation that was sanctioned by various Governments in the 1960s. I shall try to confine my remarks to the problem.
When the system-built houses and flats are demolished next year, the ratepayers must pay for their replacements. It will take 60 years to repay the debts of the first developments, yet the council is inviting us to pay yet again for the replacements. The remedy is simple: we must allow the developers who are queueing up to take aver the sites to do so, at no cost to the ratepayers.
As I told the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), people are queueing to buy houses in the middle of Nottingham. There will be no shortage of acceptable housing there.
One consequence of the demolition of such housing is that local traders are suffering. Local shops are losing money, and many companies have gone into liquidation. The local authority has powers under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to compensate those companies, but the council has decided, in its wisdom, not to apply to the Department for funds to compensate those who will be out of work because their companies have gone into liquidation. When my hon. Friend the Minister considers the problems of system-built housing, will he bear in mind this problem? I understand the reluctance of the local authority to set a precedent by allowing compensation to local traders. I hope that he will examine the problem both nationally and as a local matter that involves relatively little money.

Mr. Peter Pike: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) for choosing this subject to debate today, because it has caused major problems for council tenants in many parts of Britain. I share the view of many hon. Members that who was to blame for such property being built is of no consequence. The fact is that it was built, and that Governments of both political parties encouraged local councils, with financial inducements, to erect such industrialised, high-rise buildings in the 1960s and 1970s. It is certain that the tenants of those buildings do not care who was to blame. They want action, they want the problem resolved, the defects eradicated and decent housing provided.
That is their right, and we who alone can do it have a duty to ensure that the Government, help local authorities to tackle the job. As hon. Members said, councils will be paying for 60 years the debts incurred for such properties, but in many cases the buildings must be demolished because major defects cannot be remedied. I hope that something will be done to ensure that the problems do not recur. Many Opposition Members believe that timber frames will create problems in the 1990s similar to those that occurred in the industrialised buildings of the 1960s and 1970s.
In Manchester in the 1960s, when the Government were encouraging councils to build those units, in my office at Labour party headquarters I had a planning brief for Hulme redevelopment. It was to be called the Bath of the north, with sweeping crescents with Regency names such as John Nash crescent and John Barry crescent. However, if anyone visits those developments now and asks the tenants what relationship they have to Bath or the Regency period, the answer would not be polite. In the enormous Bison developments, known as Fort Ardwick and Fort Beswick, there have been major problems with condensation, dampness and panels falling down. That has been shown on television programmes. If I were a tenant in those properties, I should be afraid to walk near them in case a large concrete block fell on my head. I am sure that the Minister would also take care when walking near them. I

recognise the problems that Manchester must face in tackling those defects, but it cannot tackle them unless it is given massive Government financial support.
In Burnley, which is just north of Manchester, we are a little more fortunate and the problem is not so great. We have one development of deck access properties built by Wimpeys, which does not have as many problems as do the Bison properties. There are problems with all deck access properties and the council needs money to introduce compartmentalisation.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) referred to the steps that have been taken in America to improve such properties. Burnley borough council is trying to introduce a scheme of compartmentalisation that will restrict access to those who live in the Trafalgar gardens development and to improve the general environment there. That costs money, and the council has already had to pay for major developments to replace all the glass panels on the balconies with new, tougher, supposedly vandal-proof concrete panels in the hope that they will prevent further damage such as that which has happened in the past.
It is a major problem, particularly for a council such as Burnley, which has major problems in its pre-war council house stock that it cannot tackle because of the problems with its HIP allocation. I have referred before to the difficulties in a town such as Burnley, which also has a high percentage of old terraced housing that needs improvement and repair grants. The council has insufficient resources to meet the demands being made on it and has had to restrict grants.
It is difficult to deal with the problems of system-built housing. One of the problems that has not been mentioned today is that not only do we have to have new build to replace such houses, but some houses have had system-built improvements that now need to be replaced. For example, in Burnley system-built bathroom units were added on to the back of some of the pre-war council houses. The practice was quite widespread in the Liverpool and Merseyside area. The units came on lorries, were assembled and built on to the backs of the houses. Now the units have had to be demolished because of structural faults and corrosion of the metal framework. There is the massive cost of having to add new bathrooms to the houses and flats in the traditional way of building. This problem is quite widespread in the north-west, and a major drain on the financial resources of local government.
The Government fail to recognise that such properties are not the ones that are being sold, certainly in Burnley. There is no great rush of applications to buy properties in Trafalgar gardens. In the borough as a whole, one eighth of our housing stock has been sold, which for a council that opposed council house sales and was on the Government's black list for a long time is a reasonable percentage.
We are selling all our best houses and the cost of improving and developing properties and the problems of industrial built systems is borne by a smaller number of tenants. That forces council rents up at an ever-increasing rate. If the council cannot put such costs on the rent, they have to go on the rates and we all know what the Government are doing about rates. We have had holdback, clawback, penalties and now there is ratecapping for next year. That will mean that many councils, even if they thought that that was the better course for dealing with the problems, will not be able to take it anyway.
The answer is clearly and simply in the Government's hands. They have to say that they will provide money to local government to tackle this problem. It must be tackled speedily. It is not right that anybody should have to live in such properties, and if people looked at the Bison-type properties in Manchester they would not wish to live in them. It was not the planners and the architects who designed Hulme, called it the Bath of the north and said how beautiful it would he who ended up living in there. If they are not prepared to live in those properties themselves, such properties are not suitable for other people to live in. In the present condition of many such properties, the only solution is demolition and new build.
Not all this applies to Burnley properties, but we do not have the money to deal with the problem. Our case is not as bad as that of Manchester, but we need Government assistance if we are to tackle the problem and make these properties suitable and reasonable homes. Trafalgar gardens is not fully let because it is not the type of property into which people wish to move. However, they are basically reasonable homes that need jobs done on them. For example, condensation needs to be dealt with, and condensation is a major problem. There is one man who works in the housing department in Burnley whom the councillors and the tenants call Mr. Condensation because everywhere he goes he blames the condensation. He says that the tenants need more heat and more windows open, and this is on new properties.
In Trafalgar gardens, we are trying experiments to deal with the problems, but we need Government assistance if they are to be tackled properly. I hope that the Minister will recognise the serious concern of all Labour Members, and I hope of all Conservative Members, about this serious problem. Let us see action and a speedy resolution to this problem.

Mr. John Fraser: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on his choice of this important subject. I preface my remarks by saying that I shall not use the words non-traditional and system-built industrialised as terms of art when I refer to those dwellings set out in the AMA report.
I agree with many hon. Members that the faults in non-traditional building are not universal. In my constituency, there are some pentagon blocks — pentagon in shape rather than in intention—which have been successful and are used as warden-controlled old persons' accommodation. We should be wrong to stigmatise all non-traditional building by the gross faults that have become apparent in some of it.
However, having said that, there is a shock-horror story, beginning with the shock of the progressive collapse of Ronan point in 1969, and ending with the latest episode —the publication of the AMA report about defects in non-traditional building systems which have emerged in houses built since the 1960s. The scale of the problem is immense. There are 1·5 million non-traditional homes, not all of them defective, but the AMA, which is a responsible body, says that the total cost of repairs or demolition is likely to be about £10 billion. One commentator—not the AMA—put the cost of dealing with Bison blocks alone at £1·4 billion. To put it in context, the figures about which we are talking for curing the problems of non-traditional housing amount to four years of the current,

deflated expenditure on all public housing and improvement and repair grants. In other words, every kind of Government support for housing would be taken up for four years in dealing with the problems of non-traditional housing. It is a land-based story of the Titanic, except that one can substitute for icebergs the traditional elements of British weather—cold, damp, humidity, and so forth.
The catalogue of problems is terrifying. There is rain penetration not just from the roof, but from cracks in the construction. There is condensation. Hardly any hon. Member can have been in his advice bureau for a week without somebody coming to talk about the problems of condensation in system-built housing. There is rotting woodwork, cracking concrete, structural collapse, loosening joints, disintegrating balconies. The flats are too cold and too expensive to heat. If one does not have a fire hazard, one has an asbestos hazard. There is rusting of steel framework, often because the alkilinity of the concrete surrounding it has been decreased by chloride quickening processes. Everything seems to go wrong from the roof to the drains.
I agree that the political responsibility does not rest on one party or the other for the construction of properties in the past, but there is a heavy responsibility on the Government as a whole. We are concerned not about what happened in the past, but about what we must do in the future.
The first lesson that I would draw is to beware of experts. Some of the experts are well known firms, such as Wates. There are many Wates-built houses in my constituency and people cannot sell them because of alleged defects, although I think that the reactions of building societies have contributed to the crisis. The name Wates did not underwrite the safety of those properties.
Architects, too, have much to answer for in the design, materials and professional prestige that went into nontraditional housing. Experts may tell us that nuclear waste wrapped up in concrete will be safe, or that nuclear power stations built in a certain manner are bound to be absolutely safe, even to cope with a half life of several tens of thousands of years. However, after the experience of 20 years of the use of concrete in industrial housing, I would exercise more suspicion than exists at the moment about the expertise of other people who talk about the use of concrete in different circumstances. That is one of the first lessons that we should learn.
I spoke to a housing director today who told me that in one slab-built industrialised system, after only a few years, the couplings, which consist of a female on one side and a male on the other, have the characteristic that as the female gets bigger the male gets smaller. I am sure that if when those premises were built one had said in a housing committee that such a problem would arise as the building swayed in the wind, one would have been dismissed as a fussy bigot. I am backed by a strange phenomenon—a Government Whip, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson)—if only from a sedentary position. As I said, one would have been treated as a fusspot.
The Department of the Environment bears a heavy responsibility because it actively discouraged people from being over-fussy about testing these systems. In fact, a circular warned people about being too exacting in the examinations that they applied to the systems. Moreover, Government Departments in the past gave appraisal certificates to the systems, gave favourable subsidy


arrangements, and almost imposed quotas on non-traditional housing by giving speedy approvals to loan sanctions, and so on. There was direct criticism by the Government of any excessive zeal by councillors and their officials in testing non-traditional housing systems. Therefore, the Government now have a special responsibility, which they should not neglect. In some aspects of building technology, all that the Government have done is to give us the slums of the future, after about 10 to 50 years of life, chopping off perhaps between 70 and 50 years from the time that Victorian-built houses took to become slums.
One reason for the boom in private house construction is the use of the timber frame. It would be quite wrong to panic people away from using timber frame housing or to stigmatise that construction method across the board. On the other hand, the Government have a special responsibility, since they claim credit for increased start figures in the private sector, to see that the same mistakes are not repeated with timber framed houses as were perpetrated with concrete construction. Let us not trust the experts. Let us have much more testing in future.
The second lesson is that the Government should allow widespread testing and research. In the past, they were dismissive of local authorities which wanted to test non-traditional systems. The Government bear a heavy responsibility for the appraisal certificates that were given by the National Building Agency.
The next lesson is that we should not neglect skill in the construction industry. One reason why non-traditional housing ballooned was that it was a way to build homes without using skilled manpower. It was a response to a crisis. There were two responses. One response was after the war, when Governments quite properly wanted to get on with providing homes for people. There was a further response in the 1950s and 1960s, when the former Harold Macmillan wanted to get on with a big housing programme. It is not possible to carry out such programmes effectively in the long run without using skilled manpower and proper materials.
Another reason for the problems is that not enough skill was put into the assembly of system-built housing in this country. This is not the only country that has system-built housing. It is widely used in Scandinavia. I have seen many Scandinavian system-built estates. Moreover, it is widely used in north America. One difference is that in those countries skilled manpower was used to put the systems together on site. In this country we thought that we could get away with using unskilled manpower to assemble on site. Therefore, it is necessary to use and develop skills.
The next lesson to be learnt is that we cannot run the construction industry on the basis of responding to a housing crisis at one moment and then shutting it down in response to monetary policy at another time. The industry cannot be run on a stop-go basis. The development of skills, training programmes, and so on, must take place in an industry that is not run on a stop-go basis. Here, too, the Department of the Environment has a special responsibility. It cannot distance itself from the matter by failing to produce a housing strategy for the public sector, failing to forecast a need in the public sector—as it refuses to do at present—or failing to give a lead—as it also refuses to do at present.
I turn now to the action that the Government should take. The Government cannot leave local authorities to get on with the job within the context of their normal housing investment programmes. The problem is too big for local authorities to tackle on their own. First, there is funding. The Government should produce a strategy to deal with the irreparable non-traditional built houses and flats. They should provide funds beyond the HIP allocation, because the housing investment programmes and capital receipts will not provide enough money to deal with the most serious problems. The Government should be prepared to write off the debt of the most serious cases of irreparable system-built housing. They should provide money for it to be demolished and replaced.
The problem is at its worst where there are low capital receipts and a concentration of industrialised housing. In some places, where there is not much industrialised housing, plenty of houses will be sold; but in other places there will be a great deal of industralised housing—which is difficult, if not impossible, to sell—and low capital receipts. It is no good asking each local authority to contain the problem within its own funding and boundaries. The Government must provide financial assistance outside the housing investment programme.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is not present. In a previous debate on housing, when talking about Government involvement, he said:
my authority has had precious little help from that quarter. It has had sympathy by the bucket load but no help."—[Official Report, 1 July 1983; Vol. 44, c. 854.]
For the borough of Hillingdon the hon. Gentleman places the cost of refurbishment of Bison dwellings at £38 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) quoted a figure of £104 million to deal with the problem of non-traditional housing in Leeds. Other examples have also been given. That all goes to prove that a local authority with a big problem of industrial housing on its hands cannot be expected to deal with it from its own resources. There must be a separate funding strategy.
The Government must supplement the AMA inquiry, which does not go into as much depth as it would have wanted, with their own inquiry, research and study to see what defects can be remedied or to what extent continued demolition is the answer to the problem. The scale of the problem deserves nothing less than a thoroughgoing Department of the Environment inquiry followed by a White Paper.
I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, Central and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and by the hon. Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) and for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) about the problems of blight. The Government must not only follow up the AMA inquiry with one of their own and publish a White Paper on their strategy and ways of tackling the matter either by repair or by demolition, but avoid the stigmatisation of non-traditional housing. That has become apparent in the private sector, because building societies are resisting lending on, and prospective purchasers are becoming extremely suspicious of, any kind of non-traditional housing built a few years ago. They must also avoid the problem of stigmatisation in the public sector, where properties will be much harder to let because of a reputation which surrounds non-traditional homes,


even if there is little wrong with them. It is important that the Government should set out the criteria for judging whether non-traditional construction is up to standard.
The Government must treat tenants and owners with equity and fairness. First, will the Minister say when he will publish the Bill on defective housing? We had a statement on 10 November 1983, and we have been waiting for about four months for the next instalment. People in the private sector are becoming more and more nervous, discontented, worried and anxious about what will happen to them. It is not good enough to mention six categories of homes. The Government must set objective standards for judging whether an owner should be able to sell his home back to a local authority — or the Government for that matter—or be given a repair grant.
The Minister's statement on 10 November 1983 was breathtaking in its partiality and choice of the beast of burden. First, it applied only to owners. Why is it that only those unlucky enough to buy the houses are to get help, and vast numbers of people, who are too poor or too elderly, or perhaps even too sensible, to buy nontraditional houses, are to get no help at all?

Mr. Penhaligon: I remind the hon. Gentleman that that applies only to owners who have purchased from a local authority. If houses have always been owned privately, no assistance is forthcoming.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
The partiality and selectiveness of the aid to be given by the Government is astounding. Who is to bear the burden? The Government encouraged industrialised and system-building. They gave certificates of appraisal and bulldozed local authorities into building them. But when private owners find that the whole thing has gone wrong, the Government do not pick up the tab. They pass the burden back to local authorities which were railroaded into the construction programmes in the first place. That is partial, selective and makes an unfair distinction between the owner who bought from a local authority and the owner who bought direct from a private firm. It is particularly unfair to the tenant who has never bought and is never likely to buy who may be continuing to suffer the burdens of non-traditional housing compared with the person who bought from the local authority at a substantial discount.
The Government must rethink this matter and provide a strategy for giving financial aid to local authorities and private owners alike so that tenants and owners are dealt with equitably and fairly. That includes the writing off of debts for those dwellings that have to be demolished. The Government must expand resources for the replacement of those houses which need to be demolished.
We are now in the middle of a slump. This is the time to put unused resources into unmet needs. This is the time to start training and to increase production of bricks and cement. There is no shortage of resources, materials or manpower—indeed, even money. It may not be possible if we ever enter a boom, but it is possible now. The Government should embark on a replacement strategy now when it will not throw undue strain upon manpower or financial resources. As more than one hon. Member has said, we have a problem of Titanic proportions in more senses than one. It will require Herculean efforts on the part of Government and local authorities to deal with the problem.
We want a serious and considered response to the AMA's shocking report. We want more information about

the Bill dealing with defective premises. We want to hear from the Minister tonight that the Government will embark upon an all-round strategy to deal with the problem. We want to hear that the Government will make the resources available and will accept the responsibility that is truly theirs for a problem that afflicts hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a million, tenants and owners in Britain.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on having chosen this subject for debate. All who have taken part in it would want to join in a degree of thankfulness for the fact that the hon. Gentleman initiated his debate at the hour at which he did.
The debate has been thoughtful and serious, as the subject requires. The hon. Gentleman made a significant contribution and set the tone for the debate. I am anxious to correct several misunderstandings which may be in the minds of some hon. Members and which have certainly appeared in comment outside the House on the serious problem of defective housing. The debate gives me an opportunity to identify the problems which exist and the measures which the Government are taking to overcome them.
About 11 million houses and flats have been built in the United Kingdom since the war. Of these 6 million were built by the public sector, and 5 million of that 6 million used conventional materials and design. Non-traditional industrialised and system-built houses and flats account for only one sixth of the total post-war housing stock built for the public sector.
It is important that fact should be separated from fantasy. If not, people's homes, which are vital to them, whether they are tenants or owners, will be blighted unnecessarily. I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said about that matter. Blight will take place if that error is made, not on the basis of objective evidence, but because of a vague general fear of anything not built with bricks and mortar.
What are the facts about the million or so houses and flats built, mostly by local authorities, of unconventional types and materials? The first fact is that they are of many different types. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) made that point very forcefully in his speech. Each type has particular characteristics. It follows that the technical evidence about one type must not be used to condemn another. We have no evidence that defects in prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built in the 1940s and 1950s are directly relevant to homes built in the 1960s and 1970s.
Secondly, there can often be faults in some developments of a particular type that are not common to all dwellings of that type. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, whose constituency I visited on Friday. For instance, a block of flats built in a particular system may, unfortunately, because of faulty erection or poor maintenance, show serious defects, but many other blocks in the same system can still be providing good homes, and, with normal maintenance, will continue in use for many years.
The third fact is that the proven problems are, mercifully, limited, and I underline the word "proven". There are serious problems with the 170,000 houses built of prefabricated reinforced concrete before 1960. As the


hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford said in opening the debate, they were built at a time when housing was in very short supply, and most of these houses were built in the aftermath of the war.
The hon. Gentleman, and even his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), rightly pointed out that the encouragement that was given to this system of housing was an encouragement that had been given by Conservative and Labour Governments equally.
It was believed that the materials and construction systems used would provide a house comparable to one built on conventional lines. It was the availability of materials, the speed of construction and the relatively low price that were attractions to those who had responsibility at the time. Some of those houses have already provided good homes for many people for many years. For example, some of the Boot houses built in the early 1920s have provided good homes for 60 years and more.
The Building Research Establishment's recent studies show that many will last for some years yet. However, these studies also show that the reinforced concrete components are subject to gradual deterioration which cannot be halted altogether, and that most of them will show signs of that deterioration within 30 years.
I remind the House, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, of what I said in my statement last year:
The great majority of the houses studied were found to be in a structurally sound condition. There were significant differences in the rate of deterioration both between and within types. Some cracking was found in all the types and the nature of the process is such that deterioration will continue, although in some cases very slowly. All houses of these types will eventually be affected by cracking. Cracking in a proportion of houses will not occur for some years and a few houses may not display any evidence of deterioration for the next 30 years or more. No conditions were found which were structurally unsafe."—[Official Report, 10 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 422.]
It may be helpful for the House — and this was referred to by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford in opening the debate—if I explain how these defects came to be discovered. In November 1980 there was a serious fire in an Airey house in Barnsley. The house was owned by the local authority. The fire revealed severe cracking of the concrete columns which supported the house. The Barnsley council asked the BRE to examine the house. The BRE in the following month reported its findings to the council and to the Department.
As a result of that report the Department asked the BRE to examine other Airey houses. This was done, and in May 1981 the Department wrote to all local authorities, sending them a copy of the BRE report and guidance. We asked each local authority to let the Department know the result of the first two inspections of Airey houses as soon as possible, and, subsequently, the results of later inspections. Following the returns made to the BRE by local authorities, further technical information and guidance was prepared and sent to local authorities in May 1982. On 7 September 1982, the then Minister for Housing and Construction, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley), announced a scheme of financial assistance to the owners of Airey houses which have been sold by public bodies, and which had been discovered subsequently to be subject to serious or potential defects.
My predecessor announced in February last year that he had asked BRE to inspect six further types of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses—Boot, Cornish Unit, Orlit, Unity Wates and Woolaway designs. A summary of BRE's findings in respect of those houses was published on 10 November.
In December BRE published its report on Smith houses. I expect to receive reports on Parkinson, Reema—that was the type mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen and by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—Stent, Tarran, Winget and Whitson Fairhurst houses at the end of this month. The reports will be published as soon as possible thereafter. The account that I have given to the House of the steps that the Government and BRE have taken since that fire in November 1980 shows that we have followed the matter up vigorously.
These defects present a particular problem for the private owner, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. The owner is faced with an immediate depreciation of his asset. The hon. Member for Norwood asked when the Government hoped to introduce the Bill which I announced on 10 November. I hope that the Bill will be introduced before the end of the month, to give help to qualifying owners of certain houses and flats sold by public sector bodies which have since proved defective. I hope that the scheme of assistance will be in operation before the end of this year. I remind the House that that assistance will be through a 90 per cent. repairs grant, or, in some cases, repurchase by the local authority at 95 per cent. of defect-free value.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) asked me about specific problems which affect his constituency. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with my Department about these problems. He also asked me to visit Liverpool. I visited Liverpool on 28 February, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, and I readily accept his invitation to visit his constituency to see for myself the problems of the type of house to which he referred.
As has been rightly stressed, the prefabricated reinforced concrete houses in private ownership are only part of the story. More than 150,000 of these types remain in public ownership. They will have to be repaired or replaced. But the BRE studies show that many of these houses will not need repair for some years. On the basis of the technical information that we have published, local authorities will be able to undertake a considered and phased programme of repair within the resources available to them. That is a subject to which I shall return later.
Some other houses and flats built before 1960 of non-traditional design use materials other than prefabricated reinforced concrete. These include, for example, steel-framed houses, and houses built of unreinforced concrete. They cannot be lumped together with prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. I hope that local authorities, the surveying professions and the lending institutions—this point was of concern to many hon. Members—will recognise that the BRE's research on prefabricated reinforced concrete houses has no implications for these other types.
Part 1 of the AMA's report, to which a number of hon. Members have referred, which was published in July of last year, concentrated on non-traditional pre-1960 houses, but failed to make an important distinction between pre-1960 PRC houses and other types of house. There have been problems with some non-PRC types of


house. but I have seen no evidence that any type is defective as a type. Most of the evidence available is of local problems related to particular faults of design and construction or of inadequate maintenance. Sometimes the problems, such as the rusting of unprotected steel, were only to be expected. There is no evidence to suggest that these types of houses are inherently defective, nor to challenge the premise that if these houses have been and continue to be properly maintained they should remain in use for many years. We must be careful of ill-considered and generalised statements that can blight houses and cause unnecessary anxiety—a point to which the hon. Member for Norwood drew attention.
I come to the 700,000 or so homes built since 1960 in widely differing industrialised systems, including prefabricated reinforced concrete houses and flats. Again, there is no evidence that all or even the majority of these suffer from serious defects which are a result of the structural system. The AMA's report published last week provides a catalogue of the problems that some authorities have discovered in their industrialised buildings, but often the problems have their origins in poor on-site construction or poor maintenance, or both.
I accept that we are not freed from the consequences of the problem by identifying its causes, but identifying the problem takes us some way from the suggestion that the blame lies wholly with central Government for encouraging the use of industrialised systems. I remind the House, without seeking to avert the responsibility of central Government, that in each case the decision to use a particular system was made by the local authority. No local authority was obliged to use these methods. The AMA accepts that their use reflected the widely-held attitudes of the time and that
local authorities were generally compliant partners and, in some cases, enthusiastic pioneers of new methods.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford referred to the National Building Agency. The issue of a NBA certificate for a system did not relieve local authorities of the need to ensure that specific applications of the system were satisfactory. In England and Wales, certificates were issued only for low-rise designs. Some systems put into production were never certified by the NBA. Some systems were devised and developed by authorities. I intend to discuss these matters with the AMA and other interested parties at the next meeting of the Housing Consultative Council, which I hope will take place at the end of June, or at a separate meeting if the authorities would like to see me before then.
Some problems of industrialised housing built since 1960 do not flow from physical defects. Some of them stem from the basic concept of the development and layout; for example, from the sheer scale, which intimidates tenants and visitors alike, and from the provision of open space for which no one has any sense of responsibility. Our priority estates project is developing practical ways in which problems of that kind can be overcome. The cost of remedying many of those problems can be relatively modest.
Much of the debate, and rightly, has centered on the financial problems faced by local authorities. Some hon. Members have argued for immediate and massive expenditure. The hon. Member for Norwood urged that there should be writing off of local authority debt. Those who advocate that course believe that unless such massive expenditure is embarked upon there will be a distortion of

the housing investment programmes of local authorities and that it will not be possible to proceed with desirable expenditure in other areas.
I stress that these defects can, in most cases, be tackled over a number of years. There will, of course, he cases where a group of houses or a system-built block needs extensive repair earlier than that. But usually authorities will be able to spread the remedial expenditure over a period of time. In the coming financial year more than £2·5 billion will be available for housing capital expenditure by local authorities.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Minister satisfied, on the basis of the argument that he has adduced, with the 15 years that it is likely to take Leeds to repair its Airey house stock? If so, should he not make it clear to those who live in Airey houses that the Government's policy is to allow their problems to continue for that length of time and that they are not prepared to make help available for that purpose to Leeds?

Mr. Gow: It would be irresponsible of me to comment on the length of time that will be needed to carry out the repairs to the houses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As I explained earlier, the nature of the defects varies not only from one house type to another but also within the same type, and therefore I cannot comment on the figures that he gave.
As I was saying, in the financial year which begins on the first of next month, more than £2·5 billion will be available for housing capital expenditure by local authorities. The White Paper on public expenditure, which the House approved last week, shows an increase. modest it is true, for the housing programme for each of the two following years. Within the total provision for 1985–86 and 1986–87, I shall take account of the special needs of local authorities for defective housing. The provision for next year was decided in the light of the need for expenditure on remedying defects as well as of other needs.
The individual housing investment programme allocations also took account of individual authorities' needs for expenditure on defective housing. We are looking, with the local authority associations, at the method of calculating the housing investment programme allocations—the general needs index formula—to see whether any changes are needed to reflect the incidence of defective housing I do not want to prejudge my discussions with the AMA, but such a change in the GNI might be desirable in the light of information now in our possession.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister may know that Ronan Point is in my constituency. Is he saying that when that procedure and review have been concluded the Government may not reveal to local authorities the sums that they have in mind for these services, but will just take them into account when setting the final HIP allocations?

Mr. Gow: The general needs index is a guide which scores various points for certain local authority problems. Generally speaking, it would be true to say that when the GNI is reviewed annually the local authorities find that the guide is acceptable. I expect that we can reach an agreement on any revision to the GNI, as we have done in the past.
In the Housing Act 1980 we took the important step of bringing capitalised repairs within the subsidy system for


the first time, so the cost of those repairs will attract subsidy where local resources available to the authority are insufficient to meet the cost of housing expenditure.
The vast majority of houses and flats built since the war by local authorities have been of traditional design and construction using traditional materials. There is no reason to believe that all or most of those built of non-traditional materials and using innovative design and construction methods are necessarily defective.
Pre-1960 prefabricated reinforced concrete houses are deteriorating more rapidly than expected. The Government have paid for research and published it. They are providing assistance to private owners through the proposed scheme of assistance and to local authorities through the housing investment programme and subsidy systems. There is no evidence of serious defects affecting all other industrialised and systems-built houses.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister be more specific in terms of what occurs when someone has bought a house which is considered defective by a public body or local authority? Who will do the assessing? Who will pay for the assessment? Does the Minister intend to do anything about the building societies which refuse to give mortgages on those houses, although there appear to have been no structural change in the houses since they were purchased a few years previously from the public bodies?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman in his speech raised a specific point about Reema houses. Earlier, I said that before the end of this month I hoped to receive the report on the Reema houses from the Building Research Establishment. My report will be published as soon as possible thereafter. I cannot prejudge a decision on this matter. Depending on the contents of the report, a decision will be made about whether that type of house should be included in the mandatory scheme. As it is a pre-reinforced concrete house built before 1960, the likelihood — I cannot go further than that—is that it will be included in the scheme. I cannot make a decision until we have had the report from the BRE.
In my statement of 10 November I made it clear that where a house had originated in the public sector—not necessarily with a local authority, for I include the National Coal Board — and was now in the private sector, the scheme of assistance would apply to owners provided that two criteria were met: first, that the defect was not discoverable by normal surveys at the time of purchase; and, secondly, that there had been a substantial diminution in value because the house suffered from a defect not discoverable by ordinary survey at the time of purchase.

Mr. John Fraser: One further problem is that houses will suffer diminution in value, even more so when the Government publish their list, simply because they fall into one of those categories. A system X house may show no defect, but because the Government have categorised that system as likely to have defects there will be a diminution of value even though there is no structural deterioration.

Mr. Gow: As I said in my statement to the House on 10 November:
The processes of carbonation and attack by chlorides are likely to affect all prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built before 1960."—[Official Report, 10 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 422.]
That is the advice that I received from the Building Research Establishment and gave to the House.
Responsibility for the standard of future buildings must remain with those who commission, design and construct buildings. The Department has set up the defects prevention unit at the Building Research Establishment to gather and assess information on faults in buildings and provide advice for local authorities and others. The work of the Building Research Establishment, together with that of the British Standards Institution and the Agrément Board, help the construction industry to provide building of a high standard. Many hon. Members have referred to the waste of resources involved in rectifying past errors. I hope that all of us learn from those errors and that quality and excellence will once more be the hallmarks of new building, whether in the public or the private sector.

Orders of the Day — British Rail (Settle-Carlisle Line)

Mr. David Maclean: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate on the Settle to Carlisle line, which runs through my constituency for slightly more than half its length. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson), who is not in the Chamber and who has much of the remainder of the line in his constituency, can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not least because he has been involved longer in the fight to save that line than I have and has considerably more experience in presenting its case. Other hon. Members from both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), have been involved in the campaign to lend support to the Settle to Carlisle line, and I hope that we can keep that all-party unanimity on this issue, even though we might disagree on other aspects of railway policy.
British Rail, in its current publicity leaflet, described the Carlisle to Settle line as
England's Greatest Historical Scenic Route.
It said also that it was
the most spectacular main line in England.
The Midland railway built the Settle to Carlisle line to connect its Skipton-Carnforth route with Carlisle, because originally it could not negotiate a satisfactory route with the London and North Western railway to use the route via Shap. The agreement was reached before construction started, but the Midland railway was refused parliamentary powers to abandon the scheme. In 1869, work started and the line opened throughout in May 1876.
The Settle-Carlisle line is a double track main line built to high standard, running for 72 miles from Settle junction to Carlisle. It forms part of the trunk route from England to Scotland, and is the shortest route from the south-east, the east midlands and south and west Yorkshire to Scotland.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is tremendous support in Scotland for his campaign to save the railway? Because the train has frequently gone on through Dumfries, Kilmarnock and Glasgow, people in those areas feel as much a part of the campaign as my hon. Friend's supporters in Cumbria.

Mr. Maclean: I am delighted at my hon. Friend's intervention and his support. I know that for some time my hon. Friend was a keen supporter of the line as well, and I am pleased to have his support.
The line was not only a main line route between Yorkshire and Scotland but provided a valuable local service in 20 communities along its route. In 1970, those local stations were closed, severely disadvantaging my constituents in those villages and beginning the spiral of decline. The real importance of the line, however, lay in the fact that it was a link between England and Scotland.
At the beginning of 1982, the line was a part of the British Rail inter-city network with three express trains each way using it from Nottingham to Carlisle and Glasgow. Despite poor marketing of the service by British Rail, it was popular and well used. From 17 May 1982, those trains were withdrawn. Mr. Peter Walton, one of my constituents, to whom I am indebted for a great deal of information on the line, in the October 1983 edition of Steam World wrote:

The late 1970s witnessed the emergence of the successful East Midlands West and South Yorkshire to Carlisle-Scotland service via the Settle and Carlisle route, providing a direct link between these areas of population.
Simultaneously, the remaining Settle and Carlisle stations of Settle and Appleby were served, providing a vital local link for the upper Eden valley, and an excellent facility for tourism in an area that relies heavily on that industry.
The Nottingham-Glasgow trains in this form were extremely well patronised. Three expresses ran each way, Monday to Saturday inclusive, and one each way on Sundays. The Dales rail service came into being. It was initiated for day trippers, shoppers, walkers, and cyclists on selected weekends. Certain closed stations were partially refurbished to cater for this service and its success was self-evident. To the delight of railway enthusiasts, the route welcomed back steam trains in the late 1970s, and Settle to Carlisle became the route for steam specials.
Freight services from a variety of locations south of Leeds and north of Carlisle made regular use of tie line, which had the advantage of being able to offer paths to slow, heavy traffic without disrupting passenger services. On the freight side, the Railway Development Society in a publication of March 1983 said:
The Settle to Carlisle line has always been an important freight route. Not only were there plenty of local trains from quarries and farms but a substantial number used the route as a fast link between the industrial centres of the Midlands, Yorkshire and Scotland. Until recently the line handled a large number of these freight trains. However, there have been some recent developments which are reducing the line's importance as a freight artery. For example: Trains that should use the Settle to Carlisle line are being re-routed on the other, less convenient lines. A classic example is the Clitheroe to Scotland cement trains. These used to travel over the line as it was the most direct route. Now they travel south to Blackburn and use the already busy, west coast main line. British Rail have turned away substantial, local, quarry traffic on the grounds that there are no locomotives available. This has made it necessary for lorries to use small, local, roads for which they are not suited.
British Rail are planning to open the line for only one shift per day. This means that night freight, parcels and newspaper trains now have to use other routes.
Mr. Walton in his article in Steam World continues:
An air of optimism prevailed over the whole route it the late 1970s and at that time even British Rail itself boasted the importance of the route. In a publicity leaflet BR said, 'The Settle and Carlisle Railway serves today as part of British Rail's Inter City network, and also as a magnificent monument to Victorian engineering … the Settle and Carlisle is no obscure branch line meandering through the gentle countryside but a main line railway built to take its trains over the hills at speed.'
Then, apparently, British Rail's attitude appeared to change, culminating in the notice in The Times on 17 November 1983 of British Rail's intention to apply for the closure of the line. In an article in The Times on that day, Alan Whitehouse said:
Behind that bald announcement lies an extraordinary story of leaked documents, contradictory letters of reassurance to MPs and others and a secret closure plan which had become partly implemented before its existence became known.
Writing in Steam World of October 1983, David Wilcocks said:
In fact British Rail made its decision to pursue the closure of the Settle and Carlisle three years ago but senior management knew full well that any attempt to shut a line which was still part of the Inter City network and an important Anglo Scottish freight link, would involve a considerable public outcry. British Rail also knew that its case for closure would be measurably more powerful if it could demonstrate to the Transport Minister that the line was a loss maker which had become surplus to requirements. And so, while publicly insisting for the past three years that 'no decision has yet been reached' on the future of the Settle and Carlisle British Rail has been privately planning and


executing the running down of the line in pursuit of what might be termed, a 'formality closure'. Essential to that aim was the need to remove the Settle to Carlisle status as an Inter City route and this they succeeded in doing in May 1982 by diverting six daily expresses between Glasgow and Nottingham to other more circuitous routes. BR replaced the Glasgow-Nottingham train with a Leeds-Carlisle service operating the bare minimum of two trains each way on week days and none at all on Sundays. The timetabling of the new service was about as unattractive as it could be with the first of the two trains from Carlisle not arriving in Leeds till the early afternoon by which time important connecting trains for the south had long since departed.
Pressure on BR to re-time the Leeds-Carlisle trains to make them more effective has been received with callous contempt; when the new timetable appeared in May the morning trains were found to be re-timed even later than before. Such cynical disregard for its passengers leaves little doubt about British Rail motive: to produce a set of figures (which can be used as evidence at a public enquiry) suggesting that the Settle and Carlisle passenger service is little used and largely unwanted.
I have initiated the debate because that public inquiry will be held shortly, and I am worried that the overwhelming mass of evidence in favour of the line will not be presented because the TUCC inquiry will be empowered to hear only evidence of hardship. I appreciate and sympathise with the position of my hon. Friend the Minister. He cannot comment on anything which may prejudice the outcome of that inquiry, but I ask him to take careful note of the evidence presented here which will not be presented at that inquiry.
I ask him to note the tourist potential of the line, that the Steam Locomotive Owners Association is interested, that hundreds will suffer hardship and not be represented at the inquiry because their stations were closed in 1970, that the inquiry will not consider the freight potential of the line, its strategic importance if the west coast main line is put out of action, and its diversionary route importance on those all-too-frequent occasions when the west coast main line route is out of action. Not least, I ask the Minister to consider the damage which it would do to Appleby-in-Westmorland. The minutes of Appleby town council on Wednesday 24 January state:
The tourist trade will be particularly hit, especially if account is taken of the number of tourists attracted to holiday in the town by day excursions.… There is considerable potential for development in the area, not just in the town, both tourist and industrial, which could be greatly stimulated if the line was run efficiently, if closed stations were re-opened and if British Rail treated the line as a business proposition.
The Secretary of Appleby chamber of trade wrote in his letter to the TUCC:
Appleby-in-Westmorland is a particularly picturesque town, set within an area of outstanding natural beauty and is, consequently, heavily dependent on tourism which is a major local industry. This dependence upon visitors to the town is explained by the estimate of several of our members that as much as 20 per cent. of their trade is generated directly by the railway.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept that there is a widespread belief that British Rail engineered the rundown of the line to help it win its case at the TUCC inquiry. It is not just a handful of railway enthusiasts who are making a fuss. I have been inundated with letters from constituents who complain that the timetabling introduced by British Rail in May 1982 and May 1983 has resulted in making the Leeds to Carlisle service completely unattractive. A classic example was the morning Carlisle-Leeds semi-fast train timed to arrive at Leeds at 12.48, thereby missing by just three minutes the Leeds-King's

Cross train departing at 12.45, and missing by 14 minutes the Sheffield-Birmingham-south Wales service which departed at 12.34.
In May 1983, British Rail retimed the Carlisle-Leeds service to leave Carlisle much later in the morning to connect with the 13.45 Leeds-King's Cross train and the 14.52 Yorkshire to south Wales service, but that drastically reduced the amount of time that passengers from Scotland, Carlisle, Appleby and Settle had in Leeds. As another constituent of mine, Mr. Andrew Connell, said in a letter to me:
The re-timing of the southbound train reduced the time available in Leeds, to a day-tripper, to 2½ hours. The significance of this was that the bargain day return to Leeds from Carlisle and Appleby had been the single most popular journey for travellers. At the same time the price of this journey was increased by 50 per cent. but after objections was changed to 30 per cent.
I have also been sent pages of evidence showing that the passenger usage figures are not as low as British Rail claims they are. They were compiled by a constituent who noted the number of passengers alighting and boarding at Appleby. I hope that those figures will be fully discussed at the public inquiry. If not, I shall send them to my hon. Friend the Minister.
What of the future of the line? After the closure announcement, Cumbria, West Yorkshire and Lancashire county councils awarded a study contract to Planning Economic and Industrial Development Advisers to carry out an independent appraisal on the future of the line. The consultants were asked to cover a wide range of issues, including the cost of existing railway operations, the effect of the proposed closure and diversion, the potential for improving financial returns, the tourist potential and the condition of the Ribblehead viaduct and other major structures on the line.
That report is eagerly awaited as we hope that it will provide the first really authoritative statement on this railway line. Until now, we have had assertion and counter assertion, with British Rail claiming that the Ribblehead viaduct is in urgent need of replacement at a cost of between £5 million and £6 million. However, supporters of the line claim that £600,000 has already been spent on maintenance, between 1970 and 1980, and that there are years of useful life in it before reconstruction is necessary. Even then, the costs are disputed.
It is disturbing that British Rail was encouraged to make an application for an EEC grant towards the restoration of the viaduct, but did not do so. Another option was a grant from the National Memorial Heritage Fund. That option was suggested in this Chamber on 25 November 1981 by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), but apparently British Rail did not follow up that option either.
I have been sent a report by Messrs. Burke and Williams of the department of business and professional studies at Teesside polytechnic. They wrote:
We are concerned that the market for both passenger and freight services potentially making use of the Settle to Carlisle route has not been exploited to the full.
They go on to explain how retiming of schedules could greatly increase passenger traffic. Of Appleby station, the document states:
Termination of rail services between Settle and Carlisle would remove the railhead at Appleby which not only serves the needs of the indigenous population but is also a major provider of transportation into the area for tourists who, through their spending, generate income and employment in the locality.


The case for the retention of that line is strong. Last year the public service obligation grant to British Rail was £819 million. This year, the ceiling is £865 million. On the basis of route miles alone, the Settle-Carlisle line could expect £6 million to be spent on it, but not a fraction of that amount has been spent on it by British Rail. If it had been, it would now be highly successful. I believe that the line could be highly successful once again. It is laid out for high-speed running and could provide a future high speed link between south-east England and Scotland. The opportunities exist for making profit out of its potential. There can be no doubt that it is underutilised at present. The only serious attempts to market that line have come from the SLOA and Dalesrail. There has been outstanding success there. Imagine what British Rail could achieve if it, too, made a strong marketing effort.
The line should be retained for the following reasons. First and foremost is the hardship that could be caused to my constituents. I shall not elaborate on that as I shall present a large file of evidence on their behalf at the TUCC inquiry. Second, the line is the most direct route between two important areas of population—Glasgow and west and south Yorkshire. Third, it is the natural and the only sensible relief-diversionary route for both west and east coast main lines. As travellers between Carlisle and Preston last Sunday and next Sunday will testify, the Settle line is being extensively used for inter-city trains while the west coast main line is out of action for essential maintenance.

Sir Hector Monro: It is ruddy chaos.

Mr. Maclean: I see that other Conservative Members have experienced the effects of the west coast main line being out of action last Sunday.
Fourth, heavy passenger loadings on service trains, SLOA steam excursions and Dalesrail weekend diesel multiple units have consistently demonstrated public demand for the line. Fifth, some commentators, as was said in the document for Teesside polytechnic, believe that there is every likelihood of substantial future growth in the demand for speedlink services and, to a lesser extent, train-load freight. We must have the basic infrastructure to provide Anglo-Scottish freight services.
Sixth, the route is a uniquely spectacular part of our national rail heritage and is a significant tourist attraction in its own right. Seventh, the line is of social importance to the isolated communities through which it passes, first, to give long distance mobility to those who rely on public transport, second, to encourage the growth of light industry and, third, to bring tourists to a part of the Pennines that depends upon tourism to support jobs and small businesses.
In my constituency, we have the attractions of the Pennine way and in the Eden valley the best salmon fishing in England, bolstered by hotels, boarding houses and camp sites that have won some of the highest accolades in Europe for their standards. Considerable damage has already been done to tourism in Cumbria because of misguided concern about nuclear energy. Closure of the line would only cause further unnecessary damage.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give us a fighting chance to develop our full potential. We could begin if he told British Rail to show some flair and imagination, to get out and market the service and to develop an integrated tourist plan that would incorporate the best examples of

private enterprise ventures found along the line's route. That is not too much to ask, and I hope that my hon. Friend will so direct.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I declare my interest, as is the custom of the House, as a member of the National Union of Railwaymen.
I am sure that everyone who has listened to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will agree that he has made an unanswerable case to the Government about the Carlisle-Settle railway line. The hon. Gentleman is my parliamentary neighbour. I offer him my congratulations on making such an effective case only four days after making his maiden speech.
The matter is not new. Six years ago I was approached by my constituents when rumours were circulating that British Rail intended eventually to close this stretch of railway. As the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said, history shows that the line is a testimony to the type of engineering that was accomplished last century, albeit at the cost of a number of lives. It would be the utmost folly to close the line. Like the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, I have a large file of correspondence from people all over the country about this stretch of railway.
I am not making a party political point, but I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) is present, as the matter was raised at the Liberal party conference last year by a gentleman who felt very strongly about it. I know that he had a personal interest, but I believe that he raised it on the basis of wider consideration.
I understand that more than 2,500 objections have been lodged. If all those people were allowed to give evidence at the hearing, it would last even longer than the Archway road inquiry. I hope that the objectors will be present to put their case.
British Rail, in its brochures not many months ago, described the line as "scenic", but it has now been run down according to the sequence so familiar to those of us who know anything about the railways. British Rail has lived up to its reputation of running the line down, cutting the services and then bringing in a closure order. The Carlisle-Settle line has been no exception. Passenger and freight services have been massacred to the extent that British Rail can now say that the line does not pay.
I remember attending a meeting at the Home Office just over two years ago with Lord Whitelaw, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson) at which British Rail showed slides and explained what it then claimed was the real reason for the problem—the Ribblehead viaduct, which was crumbling. Apparently, everything else was all right. British Rail said that it could not be responsible if the viaduct gave way when a train was crossing it. That viaduct is in a bleak area of the countryside and has stood there for more than 100 years, battered by winds and storms. Very little has been done by way of repairs. Far more could have been done, but it is part of British Rail's technique to use any excuse for the rundown of the line.
As the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border pointed out, the retiming of services has been useless in terms of connections at Carlisle and Leeds. If the stations at Settle and Appleby were closed, the people of those


sizeable towns would be left to the tender mercies of the bus companies, if any existed. A case could be made for the retention of the line and for the reopening of Kirkby Stephen station.
British Rail has offered the excuse that there is insufficient population. I readily agree that the Settle-Carlisle line goes through sparsely populated, mountainous country, but the most recent national census shows that between Appleby and the edge of Carlisle, excluding the citizens of Carlisle, there are almost 25,000 people living within a mile and a half of the stations on the line. If the line were revitalised and imagination were shown by British Rail management, far more could be done to attract more passengers.
We are grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I am sorry that he has left the Chamber. If this major route were closed, there would surely be a knock-on effect on the Skipton to Carnforth and Hellifield to Blackburn lines, thus leaving a vast expanse of Cumbria and Yorkshire without any rail facilities.
Some time ago, Cumbria county council, in consultation with British Rail, issued a plan entitled, "A Rail Charter for Cumbria", which states:
The Structure Plan authorities consider good rail communications in Cumbria to be vital in supporting the social and economic health of the area.
Rumour has it that the next timetable issued for the line in May will be the last and that, when the 1984–85 timetable finishes, with the consent of the Minister, British Rail hopes to close the line in May 1985. If that plan goes ahead, it will be in direct contradiction of the Cumbria plan, which was agreed and signed by the then chairman of British Rail, Sir Peter Parker, and the then chairman of the Cumbria county council, Mr. Naylor. The Conservatives were in control of the council at that time, but the Labour party backed them up, and the situation is now reversed. There is a unanimous view in the council chambers of Cumbria. All parties, including the Liberals, wish to keep that stretch of line open.
In bad weather, the electrified west coast line suffers when the cables are torn down. Trains are delayed for hour after hour and have to be rerouted either via Workington and Barrow or on the Carlisle-Settle line. In almost every case, trains are diverted down the Carlisle-Settle line. If that line is closed, how will those travelling from Glasgow or Carlisle to London reach their destination in reasonable time? Will the trains be diverted via the west coast? If so, that will take much more time.
The Government will, of course, consider the TUCC report, but I hope that the Minister will turn it down lock, stock and barrel and take up the suggestion that approaches should be made to the national heritage fund for a grant towards the repairs to Ribblehead viaduct. The Government should also approach the EEC to find out whether any help might be forthcoming there. Last but not least—we have to face hard facts—Government money must be devoted to the line if it is to be saved. It is no use the Government saying that this or that can be done. Government money must be made available at the start. With Government money and investment—not only in the viaduct but in providing more up-to-date trains such as are used in other parts of the country—there is hope.
I know that the Minister will not say much tonight. In the final analysis, he is the judge and jury. The hon.

Member for Penrith and The Border has put his finger on the problem, and Parliament has discussed it. However, the problem with Parliament is that no line is important except the line that runs through an hon. Member's constituency.
I lived through the Beeching era. I was working for British Railways at the time. Lines were closed that should never have been closed, including the Carlisle to Silloth line. It was a tragedy when that line was closed. It had great potential, but it was closed. I hope that common sense will prevail in the end. With good will on all sides and with the co-operation of the railways trade unions—I believe that will be forthcoming if the Government and British Rail show some initiative—that stretch of line could be brought back to its former glory.

Mr. John Watson: I normally try to speak without notes, on the assumption that a speech given without notes is more easy to listen to and more convincing than one that is read verbatim. However, because this matter is important to my constituency and I am anxious to pick my words with care and precision, I hope that I may crave the understanding of the House if I rely to a greater extent than usual on my notes.
Last year the British Railways Board decided to submit this line for closure under the Transport Act 1962. It has been suggested that the decision was taken, in practice, several years earlier, although such a suggestion has been emphatically denied by the board. One of the most valuable purposes of the debate is to consider whether that denial is genuine. I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for his diligence in choosing this subject for debate.
The wishes of Parliament are laid down with great precision in the Transport Act 1962. Any proposal to close a line must be published in the prescribed manner. If there are objections, the local TUCC must consider them and report to the Minister accordingly. Evidence on grounds of hardship may be heard from objectors or their representatives, and the Minister must then give or decline to give his consent to the closure. I suggest that if such a procedure is not followed in principle, spirit and practice, the House, through the Minister concerned, is entitled to take action to put the matter right. Has the spirit and principle of the 1962 Act been maintained? I suggest four items that could lead us to conclude that it has not.
First, a decision was taken in 1981 to reroute the Nottingham to Glasgow passenger train away from the line. That decision, following other route changes in previous years, removed a large portion of passenger traffic that would otherwise have been a solid reason for the line's retention. I want not to question the reason for that decision — I am prepared to believe that it was based on sound commercial grounds—but to emphasise its effect.
Secondly, a discussion paper presented to the meeting of the railway executive group in January 1982 stated:
There is general agreement that closure of the line must be progressed.
The view of the London Midland Region is that the proposal should remain confidential until the through passenger services have been diverted in May 1982, as otherwise this diversion could be barred until completion of the statutory procedures. After May 1982, the closure proposal would go to consultation and the region will initiate a closure proposal.


The principal recommendation to the railway executive group in that discussion paper was that it should:
(a) Approve the proposed closure in principle.
That was in January 1982. In a letter to me earlier last month, Mr. Bob Reid, the chairman of the British Railways Board, did not deny the authenticity of that paper, but emphasised that the group had decided that further evaluation was required and that it was only after those further studies that the closure decision was taken.
Thirdly, there has been no realistic attempt to promote the line's tourist potential. Promotional literature is poor and frequently unavailable. Schedules are not generally conducive to tourist traffic. When passenger trains, perhaps surprisingly in the circumstances, have become overcrowded with tourists, there has been a marked reluctance to put on extra coaches.
Fourthly, and perhaps most serious of all, there is a factor that is based entirely on rumour but from a source that I have found trustworthy in the past. The independent report on the line that is being prepared for the local authorities concerned is, I understand, likely to show that the maintenance of the line has been run down to such an extent that repairs to the value of £10 million would now be necessary to ensure the line's long-term survival in any form. The problems of the Ribblehead viaduct are well known and widely acknowledged, but I understand that the structural problems of the line now go for beyond that single cost and, crucially, are far greater than they would ever have been if reasonable maintenance schedules had been maintained. That information might not be biblical in its accuracy, and if it proves to be incorrect I shall be the first to say so. However, if it is correct, the British Railways Board will effectively have ensured that no one, neither it nor any other operator, will be able to run a service over the line at any time in the future.
If the four factors that I have outlined are put together, what should we conclude? That the decision taken in August 1983 to submit the line for closure had by then become but a pure formality; that the consequences of earlier decisions had by then so removed the economic value of the line that arguments for its retention could be shown as specious; that the true decision upon closure had been taken years earlier; and that the spirit and wishes of Parliament, so clearly reflected in the 1962 Act, had been frustrated accordingly.
What then should Parliament's remedy be? We need look no further than the Transport Act 1962. In part IV, clause 56(8) and (9), the scope of an inquiry into a line closure is clearly defined. Such an inquiry must confine itself to evidence of hardship, which can be taken only from users of the line or their representatives. However, in subsection (10) the Minister has effective power to widen those terms of reference. He
may require an Area Committee to make a further report".
Significantly, that need not apparently be bound by the constraints of hardship and wastage. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give that possibility serious thought. I ask him not to give a response in answer to the debate, but to consider asking the area TUCC to deliver to him, in addition to its report under clause 56(9), a further report at the same time under the authority of subsection (10) dealing with the wider economic questions which are so crucial to any fair judgment about the line's future. Only by such a procedure can the inevitable charges of deliberate neglect, economic blackmail and closure by stealth be substantiated or repudiated for ever.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on the fluent and enthusiastic way in which he presented his case. It was a persuasive part of the debate. It would be an act of great folly to abandon this railway line, because it is the fastest route between Yorkshire and Scotland, an alternative west coast main line route, a great tourist attraction of considerable potential, which has not yet been encouraged and realised, and a great part of our industrial heritage.
I do not have to declare a financial interest, but I willingly declare an interest of heritage, as I come from a railway family. My grandfather worked on the Lancashire and Yorkshire railway and my father on the London Midland and Scottish. I have vivid memories of being able to travel a great deal because of my background and of standing on Keighley station and feeling, the Thames Clyde express thunder past. However, my argument about the Settle to Carlisle line will not be based on nostalgia, because there are pertinent and crucial aspects which must be expressed and debated.
One instinctively feels that the Ribblehead viaduct is the key to the case. The examination of which the hon. Member spoke might be beneficial to the argument whether it needs the sort of resources that have been quoted. If the high cost of repairs and renovation which was quoted turns out to be right, one must accept that, on operating grounds alone, there is no case for maintaining the line. It is crucial to realise that the case for maintaining the Ribblehead viaduct does not depend on operating costs and operating benefit alone.
Two further points should encourage us to go ahead and maintain such an important part of our industrial history. First, there is tremendous potential for tourism and for our industrial heritage to be preserved. It is interesting that in recent years those two matters have gone together. It is fascinating to look at the north and the way in which tourism has been developed, and to see that it is not just a matter of looking at green pastures and those objects which one always thought were part of tourism in this country. There are also attractions in industrial architecture and engineering. In that context, the Ribblehead viaduct provides two facets of the same argument.
I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) that the case for maintaining railways has not been sufficiently argued and that railway closures have often been based on shortsighted reasons. It would not be especially kind to say that that is evident in hindsight. Many people argued at the time with great force that that would be the result. However, even if we argue from hindsight that the closures have been shortsighted, we must at least ensure that we do not make similar mistakes. We can all think of stretches of railway lines that were closed because they were not part of an operating pattern which, had they been retained, would now be extremely precious to us if only because of tourism. Examples are the line between Whitby and Robin Hood's bay and the old Cheshire Lines Committee railway which went to Southport, Lord street. Can one imagine a line that would attract more tourists than that? It would be sad if we did not learn from what has gone before. As other hon. Members have said, this line could be made profitable on its own terms.
In the Yorkshire Post of 25 February, Mr. Alan Whitehouse said:
Rumours of closure have turned the line into the most profitable steam approved route in the country. Increased patronage on BR's scheduled services has led to would-be passengers being turned away because the line runs over several viaducts and there was concern about the extra weight.
It will hardly encourage people to use a threatened railway line if British Rail says that it cannot use it because of weight problems on viaducts.
To close this railway line would be a further blow to the north. If this line were to close, it would not only be a crucial blow to the communities along its 72 miles, but would further isolate industrial west Yorkshire. I agree with what the hon. Members for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson) and for Penrith and The Border said about the way in which British Rail has skilfully and quietly engineered its case. However, in the Yorkshire Post of 9 March Mr. Whitehouse said:
Rail chiefs have decided to stop using the threatened Settle to Carlisle line for diverted trains, except in emergencies … British Rail admits the change is being made to strengthen their case for closing the 72-mile route. A spokesman said: 'We … can manage without the Settle-Carlisle line as a diversion route, and this is part of that process.
The article continues:
Travellers wanting to get from the Midlands or the North-West to Carlisle and Scotland will be faced with manhandling luggage from train to bus to train. The journey will take longer in both cases than by routing the trains over the Settle to Carlisle line.
That is further evidence of British Rail's tactics in trying to engineer its case before it is decided by the proper authority. British Rail has a philistine-like attitude towards this line and is showing great cynicism, when what it needs is imagination and flair. I hope that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border has highlighted his case and that of those who believe in the future of railways, of the north, and of tourism, and who believe that we must preserve those parts of our industrial heritage that cannot be preserved unless we hang on to what we have, such as this railway line.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I rise to speak in support of the retention of this line, even though it does not run through my constituency. It is needed for the communities which it has served for many years. It is also needed as a reserve line—we have heard much from other hon. Members about that—and for tourists, many of whom would not make the journey if it were not for that route.
The story is one of a great beginning which to some extent fizzled out in later years. Primarily, the Settle to Carlisle line was built for one purpose—to gain separate access to Scotland and in doing so to challenge the monopoly of the London and North-Eastern Railway. This competition is no longer necessary, as all the lines and services are part of British Rail, but the line has become part of our national heritage and we should keep it.
The building of this important link was started in 1844 and building continued until 1876, with the loss of many lives, as we have already heard. It was built not as one route but as a series of individual railways, in a manner that can only be described as fortuitous. Of all its many lines, that which went north from Leeds over the Pennines to Carlisle was by far the most dramatic achievement of

its day and its history is one of great endeavour. The Settle to Carlisle portion was known to countless enginemen as the "long drag". It was conceived in pique, nearly abandoned through blackmail and finally built with great difficulty through some of the most mountainous terrain south of the border.
In 1966 the possible closure and consequent reduced service over this line prompted Peter Baughan to embark on a detailed work of what was one of the most dramatic railway engineering feats of the 19th century. Undoubtedly, he established a case for the retention of this unique service. It is still needed to serve the people of the communities along its route and also the people of west Yorkshire, many of whom are my constituents in Batley and Spen. I, and I am sure many of my colleagues here today and others representing the north, have received many letters on this subject and all are in support of retention of the line. Many of these people will be unable to attend the public inquiry and have therefore written to me as their Member of Parliament to put forward their views.
I used the southern end of the line as a daily commuter some years ago, so I have personal experience of the running of the line. I travelled from part of what is now north Yorkshire to industrial west Yorkshire where my business is.
We are constantly being told that the main problem with the line is the Ribblehead viaduct, which will need approximately £5 million spending on it to protect its structure. However, as I understand it, this is a listed structure and will therefore need to be maintained whether trains are run over it or not. Therefore, costs cannot now be used as an excuse to close this valuable railway, which not only my constituents but many people in Yorkshire and along the route all the way up to Carlisle wish to see maintained.

Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for initiating this debate and for the unshakeable case that he put for the retention of this stretch of railway line. Few proposals for the closure of a railway line have met with as much opposition as the one that the House is discusing tonight. I commend the speech of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson), which raised important legal questions about the action of British Rail management in diverting lucrative traffic from this stretch of the railway line to better its case.
Surely, if the procedure laid down by the House for the closure of railway lines, procedure that has stood the test of time for over 20 years, is to be adequately observed, the method used by the railway management to bring about this closure proposal is at best deplorable and at worst in direct contradiction of the aims and intentions of the House of Commons and the other place under the 1962 legislation. I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider carefully the points made by his hon. Friends and their apparent criticism of the action of the British Rail management when at that meeting in 1982 it diverted profitable and lucrative traffic away from the line. It prevented objectors among the previous users of the trains from as far afield as Nottingham and Glasgow having any say in the closure procedures, which I understand are to take effect in November this year.
I shall come back, if time allows, to the letter and minutes of the meeting of the railway executive group on 6 January 1982, which were read out by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, because, as well as the relevent portion that he read out, there are other matters that should be considered in the context of these closure proposals.
As various hon. Members have said, we are not talking about a short piece of rural railway line. We are talking about an inter-city rail link between major centres of population in the east midlands, south and west Yorkshire, Carlisle and the west of Scotland. As we have heard, until mid-1982 no fewer than six daily express passenger services between Glasgow and Nottingham used this stretch of line. The House has already heard how these trains were replaced, without consultation, by services over a more circuitous and inconvenient route, and replacement passenger services on the line were timetabled to create maximum inconvenience to business passengers, giving rise to more than a suspicion about the motives of British Rail management.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), I have an interest to declare, in that, like him, I am a member of the National Union of Railwaymen. However, my speech tonight has nothing to do with that, and it equally has nothing to do with the fact that my father, like myself—perhaps I should have put that the other way round—works in the railway industry. We are seeing the first fruits of a policy that is denying investment to what should be a vital part of this country's transport infrastructure. Unfortunately, the proposals to close the Settle to Carlisle railway line are likely to be only the forerunners of further railway closure proposals in the not-too-distant future.
I come back to the attitude of British Rail management to the retention of the line and to the way in which it treated objectors and those of us who expressed concern about the future of the line. For the first time for about 20 years, a couple of weeks ago I had the privilege to travel over the Settle to Carlisle line. We had to use a special train because of inconvenience to the scheduled services, to which I referred, and that special train was paid for at normal commercial rates by my union, the National Union of Railwaymen. When the initial application was made to charter that special train, it was refused by the management of the eastern region of British Rail, on the ground that acceptance of such an application would be "contrary to board policy".
There was a row about the refusal, and as a result the tune was changed somewhat. The management said to the Yorkshire Post, which conducted an energetic and creditable campaign against the closure proposals, that it was all a misunderstanding. The management said that it understood that the NUR wished to use the train for nothing. I have spent enough years working for British Rail to know that one gets nothing for nothing from that management, and it was never the intention of the railway unions and other interested parties to expect the railway management to provide a special train for nothing. That excuse really will not do.
When we eventually managed to get our charter, we arrived at Carlisle after an interesting and pleasant journey, stopping at the few remaining stations along that line. We were met by crowds of people, all of whom expressed their concern about the line's future and all of whom expressed their desire and belief in that future. When we arrived at Carlisle, there was a party on the

platform which did not approach any of the train's passengers. Those passengers included my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in his capacity as deputy leader of the Labour party, and the general secretary of the NUR, Mr. James Knapp, that body having paid for the train. British Rail's party included a man who bore the somewhat surprising title of project manager for the Settle to Carlisle line. No attempt was made to involve any of those who traveled on the train in any conversation about the line's future.
I understand from various press sources—I have no means of ascertaining the accuracy of this — that the only reason for the presence of railway management at the time of the special train's arrival was to prevent any of us holding a press conference on British Railways Board property. That allegation might or might not be true. In any case, it is entirely in keeping with the general attitude of British Rail's management — a management which appears determined to butcher its own industry and to collaborate with the Secretary of State for Transport in doing so.
It is appalling that railway management should indulge in the sort of subterfuges that it has with regard to the erosion of the potential of the Settle to Carlisle line. What is the alternative if that line is eventually closed? We have heard from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and others that the diversionary routes, such as they are, are likely to be extremely inconvenient to passengers who at present use the west coast main line. We have heard from both Conservative and Labour Members that the Settle to Carlisle line has traditionally been, at least until the past few weeks, the normal diversionary route for passengers who for one reason or another cannot use the normal west coast main line. Indeed, on British Rail's own forecasts for the scheduled engineering works on the west coast main line it is envisaged that no fewer than 20 normal Sunday blockages of 11 hours and two or three 24-hour blockages will take place annually.
It is reasonable to assume that if those projected blockages take place there are only two alternatives if the Settle to Carlisle line is closed. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of passengers who normally used the west coast main line will be bussed across country to pick up trains on the east coast main line, provided that there is sufficient operating capacity for extra trains to use that line, or trains will be diverted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle mentioned, via the Cumbrian coast route.
The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to the document of the railway executive group about a meeting that took place on 6 January 1982 when diversion possibilities were discussed. Paragraph 3.8, referring to the problems of diverting trains off the existing west coast main line via the Cumbrian coast route, said:
The provision of full standard clearances for the passage of Mark I, II and III stock would require expenditure in the region of £1·5 million and an early start would be required for completion by 1984.
The House will be aware that when we speak of clearances within the railway industry we are talking about the loading gauge which, for historical reasons, is smaller in Britain than it is in the rest of the EEC. On the Cumbrian coast route it is even smaller than on much of the rest of British Rail.
The document continues:
An alternative to full clearances is being considered, namely provision for physical passage of Mark III stock.


Mark III is the latest air-conditioned stock used by the bulk of trains on the west coast main line.
This involves work on underbridges and platforms only and could be carried out more cheaply and quickly than full standard clearances. The question then is whether air conditioned stock with sealed windows is acceptable from a passenger safety point of view, with reliance being placed on the public address system and possibly additional on-train staff, to prevent passengers using the vestibule door drop lights. The Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways would inevitably have to be involved in this issue.
That is probably true.
One questions the idea of brand new modern rolling stock on the Cumbrian coast route carrying additional staff in these days of supposed efficiency, where the less staff a train carries, the more efficient the mode of transport is seen to be. If this closure goes ahead and the Cumbrian coast route is used for these diversions, presumably it will be necessary to carry an additional member of staff in every coach to instruct passengers not to put their heads out of the windows because if they do, given the limited clearances on the Cumbria coast route, they are likely to get their heads removed sooner rather than later. This is a very strange way to conduct the working of a modern railway industry.
I do not believe, as I think many hon. Members would agree, that the closure of this stretch of line would be good for the transport infrastructure of the country or for the well-being of people who have used the line, are using it and will use it. If the British Railways Board, instead of tamely taking the view that it is running a steadily declining industry, did what some of its competitors have to do and went off in search of additional traffic, if it marketed this stretch of line in a way that it has not tried to do, at least until recently, it might be pleasantly surprised at the freight and passenger demand for the use of the line. As we heard from the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, and other hon. Gentlemen, the reverse has been true in recent years. As on other lines, the railway management has consciously turned away passengers and freight because it has taken the decision, prior to invoking the proper closure proposals, that the line is no longer necessary, and should be closed.
The closure of this line will inevitably mean more heavy goods vehicles on the roads. Travelling as I do from time to time as far as Carlisle, or into Scotland, I am conscious of the heavy goods vehicles, each with an individual driver, pounding their way up the M6, with the resultant damage to the motorway structure, contributing to the 6,000-odd road deaths that this country appears to be prepared to tolerate year after year. In the mid-1980s, I cannot believe that such a system of transport replacing the Settle to Carlisle line is inherently more efficient than a train of 500 or 600 tonnes, hauled by a diesel locomotive, and crewed by one man. I cannot believe that the first system is inherently more efficient than the second system.
As the House knows, there are different methods of financing the road transport system in this country. Under successive Governments, those methods have traditionally been more favourable to the first mode of transport than to the second. Many hon. Members, regardless of party, believe that the Settle to Carlisle line is well worth preserving, for the reasons outlined in the debate. We shall see the attitude of the Government once the TUCC reports.
I believe that if the closure proposal succeeds, not only will this be the first loss of a section of main line railway since the days of Beeching, but that it will be the forerunner of many other closure proposals. Many hon. Members—again I hope regardless Of party—will resist this planned closure as fiercely as we shall resist the shortsighted philosophy that lies behind it. We shall continue to criticise the management of British Rail when it indulges in the sort of subterfuges in which it has indulged over this line. The friends of the Settle-Carlisle line association, who have been active in writing to hon. Members, are not alone in their concern. The campaigns that are being conducted, particularly by newspapers such as the Yorkshire Post and by local authorities throughout the north of England, to preserve this line will eventually be successful. It would be a tragedy if the line were to be allowed to close.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): This has been an extremely interesting and useful debate. It has demonstrated clearly the vigour with which my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is representing the interests of his constituents and the depth of concern that is felt in all parts of the House about the future of this line.
As hon. Members have said, the Settle-Carlisle route passes through some of the most beautiful country in the world, though perhaps I should speak of it in the way in which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) described it—the Carlisle-Settle line.

Mr. Ron Lewis: We need not argue about that.

Mr. Mitchell: The railway there is a tribute to the engineering skill, enterprise and ingenuity of the Victorian age and the men who built it. Thus, the first point that I wish to emphasise is that my right hon. Friend and I recognise the great affection that is felt for this line and the concern that is felt about this part of our national heritage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border fascinatingly outlined the history of how the line came to be built — ironically, because Parliament would not allow the company to withdraw and use the line which is now known as the west coast main line—and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) spoke movingly of how it was built and about its history. Clearly it has a widespread appeal.
The second point that I wish to emphasise is that the procedure for dealing with proposals for railway closures is clearly set down in statute. By law, the responsibility for proposing closures lies with the British Railways Board. It is required to publish notice of the proposal under section 56 of the Transport Act 1962. If there are objections to the proposal, they are considered by the transport users consultative committee for the area concerned. The function of the consultative committee is to hear and report to my right hon. Friend on the extent to which the proposal would cause hardship. In the light of that report — and, I stress, any other relevant considerations—it is my right hon. Friend's responsibility to decide whether to give his consent to the proposal.
That statutory procedure is being followed in this case. The British Railways Board has published its proposal for the closure of the line, the TUCCs will be hearing objections


later this year— the hon. Member for Carlisle spoke of some 2,500 such objections having been lodged—and the TUCCs will then report to the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border referred to a belief that BR had deliberately run down the line to enhance its case for closure. Such a suggestion is a matter not for me, but for British Rail, to answer. BR has made it clear that the decision to reroute the Nottingham-Glasgow service away from this line was taken on commercial grounds, including a significant saving in the amount of rolling stock which had to be employed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson) spoke of the spirit of the legislation and asked whether it had been complied with. He referred also to the rerouteing of the service from Nottingham, and I have dealt with that point. My hon. Friend complained about tourist traffice not being encouraged and helped. That is a matter for British Rail management.
I emphasise — I am grateful to hon. Members for recognising this — that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in a quasi-judicial position. We must, therefore, not only be utterly impartial but be seen to be so. Only in that way will the House and the many people who care so much about this line have confidence in the statutory closure procedures that Parliament has provided. It would be wrong, therefore, for me to express any view on the merits of the closure proposals. I hope that the House will understand why I have become uncharacteristically silent on the arguments put forward by hon. Members.
Without expressing any view on the merits of the closure proposal, I can help the House on one or two matters. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) referred to the Ribblehead viaduct and its attraction as a piece of our industrial archaeology. The hon. Member for Carlisle spoke of the condition of the viaduct. I understand that local authorities have commissioned a survey into its condition, and I wish to see that survey as soon as it is available.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I am glad that the local authority has commissioned a survey, but there have been many surveys. It is time to add to them. I suggest that the Department of Transport should set another survey in motion so that we get the full facts.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall consider that point, but first I should receive the survey which is already under way. I wish to examine that survey carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen reminded the House of the preservation order on the viaduct and pointed out that it would be an unavoidable expense for British Rail to maintain it. In those few Delphic words, my hon. Friend raised a major question about whether the railways should have the responsibility to look after industrial archaeology or whether we should find some other means to meet the expense.

Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, although the viaduct is listed as a grade 2 structure, each year hundreds of grade 2 listed structures are, unfortunately, demolished? It is possible that British

Rail, if closure of the line occurred, might apply for that structure to be demolished because its upkeep was unreasonable.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to closure by stealth and suggested that the closure issue had become a charade because British Rail had made up its mind—that is up to BR—but it is for Ministers to consider the issues, and they certainly have not made up their minds. They will consider all matters, including my hon. Friend's point about section 56(10) of the Transport Act 1962.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border feared that the interests of those who cannot show hardship will not be considered. I assure him that, although those people will, I understand, be unable to make their case to the transport users consultative committee, we shall carefully consider all the points made during this short debate and in correspondence to Ministers by Members of Parliament and the public, even though they are not relevant to the precise coverage of the TUCC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said that he had evidence that there is an error in British Rail's figures of the numbers of passengers. I should be pleased if he would send me that information so that I can study it at the appropriate time.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West implied that British Rail was rigging the evidence before the matter reaches Ministers. I assure him that we shall take into account what the line can do as well as what it is doing.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) charged British Rail with having less than good faith. I somewhat resent his continual attacks on British Rail and its management. The use of phrases such as "determination to butcher its own industry" is not helpful, in this debate or any other, as a rational response to the way in which the chairman, the board, the management and staff of British Rail are tackling the problems that BR faces. I emphatically deny his assertion that this is the first fruit of Government policy of denying investment to British Rail. He is well aware that British Rail is not being denied investment where it has investment projects that it believes to be worth while.

Mr. Snape: The Minister must know that as well as criticising British Rail management for carrying out what I regard as the Government's dirty work, I also criticise his Department. It is proposing a cut of hundreds of millions of pounds from British Rail's investment over the next few years. That inevitably prejudices the future of lines such as the Settle to Carlisle railway.

Mr. Mitchell: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, is so ill-informed. Far from slashing the amount that British Rail will spend on investment, we expect that there will be a 40 per cent. increase in its investment between now and 1986. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework better.
I give a firm assurance that we will take all relevant considerations into account in arriving at our decision. That includes the invaluable contributions that have been made during the course of the debate.

Orders of the Day — Environmental Pollution

Mr. James Wallace: I welcome the opportunity to debate the 10th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution relatively shortly after its publication. The title of the report is "Tackling Pollution—Experience and Prospects" and it shows that it is a review of the Government's performance in promoting environmental protection, and particularly their response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission's previous report. It also gives us a perspective for the future, as the Royal Commission has taken the opportunity to air some of the current environmental issues which are of considerable public interest.
I am sure that an expression of appreciation for the Royal Commission during the 13 years since its inception will be shared by many hon. Members. Royal Commissions are often thought of as bodies to which matters are referred by the Executive when they want to shelve the issue. That can hardly be said of this Royal Commission which has, in its 13 years, undertaken a complex and prodigious work load. Many of its reports are refreshing inasmuch as they do not appear to show the hidebound, establishment approach but often come up with the Commission's own independent line on critical matters.
In reviewing the Government's performance in response to the report, it would be right to award bouquets and brickbats. One should give credit when it is due. For example, the Government responded speedily to the recommendations in the sixth report to set up the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.
The present Administration's response to the ninth report, "Lead in the Environment", was examplary for the speed with which they reacted. However, at the other end of the scale, the Government took almost seven years to respond to the fifth report on air pollution control. Even then, it was thought appropriate that talks should take place on some matters, which could more positively have been commenced some seven years earlier. It was four years until there was a response to the seventh report and two years until there was a response to the eighth report.
The Royal Commission expressed some of its frustration in the third chapter, paragraph 53, where it accepted that, like any other advisory body, it had to accept the fact that not all of its recommendations would be implemented. It stated that it is reasonable for Royal Commissions
to expect that the reports will be dealt with as expeditiously as the complexity of the subject matter permits. Unfortunately in our case these expectations have not always been met.
I think that the Government will be much more prompt and positive in their response to this report.
Therefore, it would be unfair to condemn the Government out of hand for neglect of the environment, but it would not be so unfair to criticise them for sluggishness not only in their response to the report but particularly with regard to international initiatives, such as in the EEC, in taking action to deal with polluting hazards.
The report goes into some detailed philosophical argument on the different approaches of the United Kingdom and the continent and attributes some of the causes to the difference between a common law and a civil

law approach. It seems to ignore the fact that in part of this kingdom the legal system is based on a civil law approach. The commission believes that Britain has overplayed its philosophy, sometimes to the extent of farce — it illustrates our reaction to the 1975 EEC directive on the sulphur content of gas oil — and sometimes to the detriment of commerce. The report suggests that, if this country were to take a more positive leadership role in initiating environmental protection measures rather than being a sluggard, that could have beneficial commercial spin-offs.
Perhaps the most important conclusion in the report with regard to the approach that should be adopted is the recommendation about the adoption of the best practicable environmental option. That approach was first mooted in the fifth report on air pollution control. It acknowledges that pollution is not always — perhaps seldom — containable within one medium. One example is that the good idea of bottle banks to prevent the pollution caused by litter has, in its train, produced complaints about the noise that they produce. That is a simple example.
It is clear that a pollution problem is not necessarily solved by shifting it elsewhere. I call upon the Government to introduce a co-ordinated approach to pollution in all its aspects. A pollution inspectorate is essential. In their belated response to the fifth report on environmental pollution, the Government admittedly gave a nod in the direction of the best practicable environmental option. However, in this debate it would be useful if the Minister gave us an assurance that the resources will be made available to implement such a policy so that there will not be yet another nod in the right direction.
As the report rightly states, that approach has particular relevance when assessing the environmental aspects of energy policy. The report highlights the important link between energy policy and the environment. Often, that is portrayed as a battle between fossil fuels and nuclear power, but many other aspects of energy strategy have consequences in terms of environmental pollution. They are tucked away in the report in the chapter on air quality. There is a warning that effective insulation carried out in the worthy name of energy conservation could result in inadequate ventilation.
My party has often argued for a Severn barrage, although we recognise that it could have environmental consequences. Likewise, windmills dotted across the Highlands and Islands would be useful in producing wind power, but, again, there would be environmental consequences. In balancing those consequences against the advantages of certain energy strategies, the interrelationship between environmental considerations and energy is clearly extremely important.
For that reason, I support the commission in its call for the resurrection of the Commission on Energy and the Environment which was set up in response to a recommendation in the sixth report of the Royal Commission on nuclear issues but is currently in suspended animation, having produced just one very valuable report on coal and the environment. In February last year, a Government spokesman assured us that the commission would be revived if there was a pressing need for it. It may be a reflection of the Government's rather ad hoc approach to energy policy—in some quarters it is perceived as non-policy—that the Government seem not to have appreciated the pressing need. I urge the Minister to take account of the view of the Royal


Commission, which is shared by many people outside, that a pressing need exists and that the commission should be resuscitated, preferably with the wider terms of reference originally recommended, taking account not only of environmental aspects but of social, economic and technical aspects of a given energy strategy.
Two further environmental issues are very much in the news and emphasise the importance of the relationship between energy and environment. I refer to acid rain and the disposal of radioactive wastes. The subject of acid rain has generated much debate even among the experts in recent months, so it is perhaps understandable that the Royal Commission has tackled it with considerable caution. Much evidence has been put forward to the effect that acid rain is responsible for the defoliation of forests and the decrease in the number of fish in freshwater streams and lochs. It is suggestd that in Sweden it has even damaged the water supply.

Mr. John Page: The hon. Gentleman, as is natural for one with a rural and very watery constituency, has referred to the countryside. Will he comment on the effect of sulphur dioxide on buildings such as St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey and the beautiful clean fabric of the House itself?

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I believe that more research has been done on the continent. I understand that there is an annual maintenance bill of about £1,500,000 for Cologne cathedral due to corrosion, so it is clear that acid rain causes damage to buildings as well as to the natural environment. The Government's watchdog committee recently reported that the acidity of rainfall has been increasing expecially in parts of Scotland and the north of England, and the problems have been experienced and monitored for a considerable time in Scandinavia and central Europe.
It is right that we should be alarmed and concerned about such problems and a prompt response is required from the Government. The Central Electricity Generating Board suggests that it will take five to 10 years for options such as coal cleaning, gasification or fluidised bed combustion to become technically available. As that seems too long to wait, an extensive desulphurisation programme should perhaps be implemented. Nevertheless, I advise caution because it is important that we make the right decision. That is not made easier by the recent findings of a researcher, Dr. David Kinsman, of the Freshwater Biological Association, who is reported as having said:
The whole question of acid rain, its causes and effects, is extremely complex, but there is no basis for the gloom and doom forecasts. We must spend more time on research. It would be daft to spend £3,000 million of filtering smoke emissions if it is not going to solve the problem.
One should not lightly dismiss the comments of people who have no axe to grind.
The Royal Commission deals with the complex problems of cause and effect. In my opinion its conclusion is a balanced response, in the light of the evidence. The Royal Commission did not propose any emergency measures, but that should not be an excuse for procrastination. It should be an incitement to the Government to go ahead immediately with the required research called for by the Royal Commission, and with the Central Electricity Generating Board's pilot scheme for desulphurisation. It may be some time before the

Government produce a considered response to the other recommendations of the Royal Commission, but I urge them to respond speedily on acid rain.
The question of radioactive waste generates considerable passion and fear. The fears have not always been allayed by the reassurances of the nuclear establishment, and may be fanned when Ministers tell us that certain beaches are not safe to walk on. The perception of a hazard, even if it has no basis in reality, can cause real fear, and the anxiety in the minds of local inhabitants can blight the quality of life as surely as a real environmental hazard.
When I was practising at the Scottish Bar, I represented objectors at the public inquiry into the boring of test bores in the Galloway hills for research into the disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Although the nuclear authorities frequently assured the local inhabitants that the project was only a research one, there were real fears which had considerable consequences in the local community. In the same way, there was a recent newspaper report to the effect that a commercial company had come up with the idea of disposing of intermediate nuclear waste under the sea bed in close proximity to my constituency. I receive a considerable amount of mail from those who have read such reports and are understandably worried about them.
I am grateful to the Minister for his recent reply reassuring me that any such proposals are purely conjectural and that the Government have still to be satisfied about the techniques of disposing of waste beneath the sea bed, let alone in any specific spot. The reply was given with conviction, but the seed of doubt has been sown in the local community. All responsible voices on both sides of the nuclear debate agree about the need to find a safe means of disposal. It is essential that the public should have confidence in the bodies which are determining the means of disposal. That confidence would be enhanced if the recommendations of the Royal Commission about the composition of the radioactive waste management advisory committee and NIREX were implemented. That is particularly important in the case of NIREX, which is an example of the regulation of the industry by the industry and for the industry. Its failure to respond in spirit—if not strictly to the letter—to the recommendation of the radioactive waste management advisory committee that it should publish a short list of sites for the disposal of intermediate level waste before the selection of two particular sites raised doubts as to whether that decision was entirely uncoloured by political influence, and diminished the credibility of the body. The addition of an experienced independent member, or members, to NIREX—possibly even from an recognised environmental lobby group—would enhance its standing in the eyes of the general public.
The debate between fossil and nuclear fuel is referred to in the report. I accept that the report argues for a modest expansion of the nuclear programme. That recommendation does not necessarily find favour with my right hon. and hon. Friends and me, but, as the commission said, it does not expect everyone to accept all of the recommendations. The problems associated with acid rain and radioactive waste underline the need to develop alternative benign sources of energy. That was pointed out in the Royal Commission's sixth report. It urged greater investment in and spending on research and development in such alternative and renewable resources. Many of us


acknowledge that there has been such an increase, but there is still an imbalance between the money spent on nuclear development and that spent on alternative sources.
It is impossible to deal with all aspects of environmental pollution. If my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will seek to raise other issues, especially secrecy. A recent European Community survey found that 93 per cent. of interviewees wanted stronger measures to protect the environment against pollution. We believe that pollution abatement is a vital ingredient in promoting the quality of life. It is therefore essential for us to develop consistent and progressive policies. Such policies would require investment and the allocation of resources. I suspect that the Government have been sluggish, as the Royal Commission suggests, because environmental control, like many other issues, has had to genuflect before the altar of monetarism. Such an approach is short sighted. If we are seriously to safeguard our environment from pollution—it is an issue that has consequences for future generations—the Government must signal an enthusiastic attitude by coming up with a prompt and positive response to the report, although I do not expect a full response today.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on initiating this debate. I am glad he said that he did not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to give a fully-fledged response now. I was a little dubious about his practical wisdom in initiating the debate so soon, unless it was to put down some markers to show what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are worried about. That is a perfectly fair way in which to go about things. If he is looking for definitive answers, however, he is seeking them too soon. That would be an unrealistic expectation at this stage.
The Conservative party, which my hon. Friend the Minister represents so well, already has a good record on environmental matters. That needs to be said. It also has good intentions. I was pleased to see that, in our June 1983 manifesto, under the heading "Controlling pollution", the Conservative party committed itself to removing lead from petrol at the earliest possible date and to reducing lead in paint, food and drinking water. It also committed itself to reducing river pollution, tightening controls on the disposal of hazardous waste, supporting emerging technologies in recycling and reclamation, further reducing levels of smoke and sulphur dioxide in the air and maintaining th safety record of the British nuclear industry. I admit that that is not a full menu of matters of environmental importance, but it shows that the Government and the party that I support are serious about these matters.
I was especially pleased that, during Environment Questions last Wednesday, in reply to my question about the report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
The Government are anxious to be in the lead and to ensure that we pay our full part, both nationally and internationally, in the improvement of this area of policy."—[Official Report, 7 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 834.]

No one can say with any justification that the Government do not take environmental issues seriously and are not proceeding with all due attention to cope with these matters.
In the light of that, I shall devote my brief intervention to a series of questions about the excellent tenth report of the Royal Commission. I shall use the questions to highlight some points to which I attach importance and which cause anxiety in these matters. I hasten to add that I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to answer them tonight, but I ask him to think about them over the coming weeks and months and preferably to come up with a typically positive and forward-looking response.
First, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that special attention should be paid to substances which have persistent and bio-accumulative properties, which run the risk that options could be closed in future years? I refer to the arguments that were put forward in the world conservation strategy and the Government's response to it. Secondly, does the Minister agree that unnecessary secrecy—a point which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is likely to touch on—is harmful to the environmental interest and that there should be a presumption in favour of unrestrictive public access to the information which the regulatory authorities are entitled to receive by statute? I think of the secrecy imposed on the air pollution inspectorate by the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974.
Thirdly, is the Minister prepared to strengthen local authority powers to act against smoke emitted from diesel engines? As a resident of central London, I find that that is a considerable problem. Is he prepared to encourage local authorities to pool their resources of manpower and equipment for pollution control? To embark upon a topical point, when the Greater London council is finally abolished—a policy which I support—will the Minister make sure that the excellent GLC scientific services and those who work for it will be available to the people of London to perform these vital environmental functions?
Fourthly, is the Minister prepared to reaffirm the Government's commitment to complete the legal implementation of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which they are due to do by July 1986? I sincerely hope that the Government intend to do so, because it would be an earnest of the Government's good intentions, of which we made so much in our election manifesto, especially in the passage to which I have already referred.
Fifthly, does the Minister attach importance to the long-term monitoring of air quality, and is he prepared to increase the number of sites in the baseline network for monitoring nitrogen oxides and ozone—two of the most significant compounds?
Does the Minister intend to see that further progress is made towards the reduction of motor vehicle emissions, and do the Government accept that the method of introducing unleaded petrol, to which we are committed, should not involve an increase in the total amount of carcinogenic hydrocarbons emitted from vehicles? Do the Government favour the implementation of pilot schemes to abate sulphur dioxide emissions while we await the findings of the longer-term investigation of the problem being conducted by the CEGB and other bodies? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) mentioned the effect that sulphur dioxide can have, not only in traditional industrial areas, but in the heart of


London on some of our historic buildings, such as the palace of Westminster, which is having to be cleaned at such effort and expense.
I shall add a word about the more remote problems, which are just as important. Are the Government prepared to take an international initiative of an appropriate kind to limit the use of chlorofluorocarbons, which may deplete the stratospheric ozone? Are the Government prepared to pay more attention to the possible dangers of the "greenhouse effect" on the globe as a consequence of the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Nobody knows about these matters for certain, but one knows for sure that the more investigation that is done in good time, the more we shall be able to minimise any risks that may ensue. Since the greatest contribution to the "greenhouse effect" comes from the burning of fossil fuels, does that not have important implications for our energy policies and those of other countries, since we are not the largest burners of fossil fuels?
Apart from a modest increase in nuclear capacity, which may be necessary in coming years, should we not make greater efforts in energy efficiency and conservation? In the broadest sense, energy conservation is an invaluable fifth fuel in our economy and should be treated as such.
On a more philosophical note, do the Government accept the point that comes through the report time and time again that prevention is better than cure in environmental policy? Are they as committed to that philosophy as some of our EC partners seem to be, since they have thrown their weight behind the so-called third action programme of the Community to a greater extent than previous British Governments have been prepared to do? We must, at all costs, avoid what was described in the report as environmental time bombs of the sort instanced in the case of asbestos. We must ensure that we do not tread that path again.
It is most timely that the Royal Commission published this valuable report for the benefit of the House. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell the House the other day that the Government would respond to the report by the end of this Session. I trust that the response will be purposeful and that appropriate action will follow. After the great issues of war and peace, the issues tackled in this report may be the most important that face the Government and, in some cases, the rest of mankind. If the report calls for
a dynamic, anticipatory approach to pollution problems,
the House and the country can be confident of receiving such a response from the Government.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I am in general agreement with the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), although it was rather amusing to hear him put forward the party piece so strongly, as though there was great devotion in the Conservative party to environmental protection. I recall the pressure that we had to put on his right hon. and hon. Friends about lead in petrol. It took a long time to get any change in the law, and was almost like pulling their teeth out one by one.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on introducing this debate, and I thank him because it gives me the opportunity to speak about acid precipitation, an issue that I have followed

closely for two years. The Royal Commission report rightly focuses attention on the problems of air pollution, because acid rain and acid deposition are increasingly worrying problems, especially in Scotland. In the spring of 1982 the Government announced plans to cut their funding of research on air pollution. Among the worst hit establishments was the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, whose headquarters and many field offices are in Scotland. Recommendations 7.60, 7.61 and 7.63 of the report, which call for an increase in air pollution monitoring capability, show how wrong-headed were the Government's intentions in April 1982.
In June 1982 I tabled a motion on the subject of acid rain, which included a call for the reversal of the proposed cuts. A few days later—I do not claim that it was cause and effect—the interim report of the United Kingdom acid rain review group was published, and in July there was the Stockholm conference on long-range, trans-boundary air pollution. Because of the mounting worry about acid rain deposition and increasing evidence from other countries, the Government later decided to reverse the proposed cuts. That decision was welcomed, but it can be only a first step towards more positive action to curtail sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide pollution of the atmosphere.
At the beginning of this Parliament I tabled early-day motion 81 entitled "Acid Rain", which was signed by 45 hon. Members from all parties. Apart from observing the damage that acid deposition is doing to the environment, it calls for specific actions by the Government under three headings. First, there should be energy conservation measures to lessen the amount of pollution. Secondly, there should be the use of available technology to control and clean emissions to the atmosphere, and, thirdly there should be increased research funding for the continued study and monitoring of the problem. The third of these three is now happening to some extent, with the announcement of a £5 million research study to be undertaken by the CEGB and others.
It is the second measure that needs urgent consideration —the use of already available technology to control and clean emissions. I emphasise the fact that in Scotland we are facing a real risk of becoming the next acid deposition casualty in Europe. The evidence points to the fact that the problem is coming our way. The interim report of the acid rain review group has been supplanted by the final report and, not surprisingly, the conclusions are, if any thing, strengthened.
The report says that the acidity of rainfall is increasing in Britain and that a nation-wide monitoring system must be established. It identifies the areas that are most badly affected as the west central highlands and the southern uplands of Scotland and the Lake District. Although Scotland has not experienced the highest level of acid rainfall in the United Kingdom, the higher volume of rainfall in the highlands ensures that it receives the greatest input of acidity over the year, and many lochs and rivers in southern Scotland are already badly affected, with fish stocks dying off. It is probably only a matter of time before other watercourses in the highlands have the same thing.
I wish to stress why Scotland is particularly at risk. Unlike much of England, which has limestone and other calciferous rocks and deeper soils, much of Scotland has granitic and gneissian underlying rocks, and the soils are often thin. This means that the acid effects of the rainfall are not neutralised and groundwater remains very acidic.
In November 1982, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, then the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said that:
there is no evidence at present to suggest that the levels of air pollution, including acid rain, experienced in this country are having serious or widespread effects on the environment."—[Official Report, 14 November 1982; Vol. 39, c. 76.]
Whatever country he was talking about, it cannot have been Scotland, or else the hon. Gentleman was simply ignoring the evidence. His attitude is typically English and part of the Government's stiff upper lip syndrome that the patient has to be almost on the point of death before he is considered to be ill.
Finally, there is the problem of controlling and reducing sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide pollution. The Royal Commission report in recommendation 7.87 says:
The Central Electricity Generating Board should introduce … over the next five years, certain of the sulphur dioxide abatement options that are already available.
There is no doubt that this would cost money, and would be equivalent to some 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. on the price of electricity. However, given that the Government have recently attempted to raise the price of electricity by 5 per cent., that does not seem too much to pay for a cleaner environment.
I mentioned the example of the CEGB because figures show that power stations burning high hydrocarbon fuel are responsible for over 60 per cent. of the sulphur dioxide emitted into the atomsphere from the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Page: I have only glanced through the report, I am afraid to say, while the right hon. Gentleman is obviously deeply expert in it. Can he explain to a novice such as myself why there is this new bad thing which

seems to be happening so suddenly? There have been power stations burning coal, oil and other things for a long time. What has come together to create the new difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman is so eloquently explaining.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman says that he has not read the report, which deals with this problem. I take issue with him over the fact that this is an entirely new problem. I remember being part of a parliamentary delegation to Norway over 10 years ago. The attention of members of that delegation was drawn to the fact that lakes were becoming sterile and that it was because of sulphur emissions. It is not a new problem, but the hon. Member is right to say that it has suddenly come to a head.
Some would argue that a greater increase in nuclear power generation is the obvious answer. I do not agree. In Scotland already, 38 per cent. of electricity demand is supplied by nuclear power stations, and Torness still has to come on stream. Torness will greatly increase that figure, which in unfortunate. I say "unfortunate", because increased reliance on nuclear power is only storing up another kind of environmental problem for the future, and one which will be equally regrettable—if not more so—when our land and seas become polluted by radioactive waste.
I conclude by observing that the EEC has recently adopted a resolution based on the "Muntingh" report on the combating of acid rain, which is a hopeful sign. I hope that the United Kingdom Government will soon take steps to ensure that sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide pollution in this country is greatly reduced. If I might say so, had it been a decision that was required of a Scottish Government, it is my belief that we should have reached the correct conclusion long ago.

Orders of the Day — Environmental Pollution

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) referred to the pollution of the sea by radioactive waste, and it is with that matter in mind that I rise to speak in this debate.
In page 28 of this excellent report, under the heading
The effect of secrecy on risk perception",
paragraph 2.52 states:
Secrecy—particularly the half-kept secret—fuels fear. In our visits and discussions we have noted instances where quite unnecessary concern has been caused by people's inability to obtain information on the nature of a discharge or waste material.
It goes on:
As the Second Report put it:
'Since many industries are going to great trouble and expense to abate pollution, they do themselves a disservice by needless secrecy. We believe that public confidence in the conern these industries have for the environment would be strengthened if this needless cloak of secrecy were withdrawn.'
The BNFL plant — Windscale — is not in my constituency; it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Public perception of that plant and its discharges probably falls under the general heading as outlined in that paragraph. However, the public are mistaken. Although public perception of the Windscale plant is that it is a risk and that not all information is being made available on discharges from that plant, that is not so. The Government, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and BNFL ensure that the maximum amount of material and information are made available about those discharges. The problem is that the perception remains that there is a danger. In examining this report, we have not only to examine the facts and figures about nuclear discharges, but to understand the perception of the British public in relation to what they believe to be a danger.
I do not believe that it is a danger, but the public believe that it is. I take this opportunity to point out to those people who holiday in Lakeland and come to the Cumbrian coast that all the publicity over the past months, following the Windscale leak, which had a direct effect on my constituency, grossly misstates the case. It misrepresents the facts. People should not be concerned. They should still come. Cumbria is safe. What we make is safe. Our hotels, our industry and our tourism industry are good and healthy and need their support again this year.
However, that does not mean that we are complacent about what changes we believe should be introduced in nuclear waste and discharge control. As the Member for Workington, adjacent to a constituency where these major discharges take place, I take this opportunity to place firmly on the record what I believe the changes should be and when they should be introduced.
Last week members of an excellent organisation called Greenpeace visited the House. I support that organisation, despite my support for the nuclear industry, because in this matter it has been very reasonable. There may well have been questions about its activities at the end of the Windscale pipeline, but people never understood that its intention was to draw attention to what it believed was an

excessive discharge of nuclear material into the Irish sea. Some people may question the way in which it set about that task, but it was successful in doing so. It highlighted the kind of issues that the Royal Commission was examining in its report. It showed that, despite all the assurances that have been given to the general public, accidents can occur and damage can be done to the environment.
It was with that in mind that last week representatives of Greenpeace, through the auspices of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) were invited to the House to make a presentation to a number of hon. Members, journalists, and, indeed, even to a representative of the Minister's Department. The Minister was right to send a representative to that meeting, because it added credit to the considerable work that has been done by Greenpeace on the possible solutions available to the Government, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and the nuclear industry in general.
Greenpeace maintains that it is possible to reduce substantially the level of discharge into the sea from our nuclear installations. If we reject the principle of ALARA —as low as reasonably achievable—and concentrate on the implementation of ALATA—as low as technically achievable—which to some extent discounts the need to take costs into account when resolving the problem, we shall be able to reduce the discharges in the way that the great majority of the British people want.
In some ways we are pushing at an open door, because the technology is there. Greenpeace was able to prove to us last week that at Hanford in America, at Marconle and Le Havre in France and at a proposed reprocessing plant in Germany, levels of radiation emission into the sea, and in some cases rivers, were substantially — indeed, hundreds of times — less than the levels of emission from our plant in Cumbria. If they can do it abroad, we can do it at home. All it needs now is the political will.
I believe that the political will exists in Britain. The Liberal party, the Social Democratic party, the Scottish National party and the whole Labour movement support the principle of reducing discharges in the way that I am suggesting. Also many Conservative Members subscribe to ALATA.
We believe that there is a duty upon the nation to ensure that those areas that retain reprocessing and nuclear facilities should not be required to carry the great burden of retaining such manufacturing and energy-producing arrangements. We believe — as, I believe, does the whole British nation that nuclear discharges should be reduced to a minimum. Although there is a reference in this report to NIREX and the need to widen its membership to include bodies which do not belong to the industry—in other words, perhaps to include the lobbies which have an interest in the industry—it is perhaps significant that it did not in any way on this occasion care to venture down the ALATA route.
That is the solution. I can say from these Benches tonight that my constituents, who have been affected by what has happened over the past few months, now want ALATA. We no longer believe that we should have to bear the heavy price of the current reprocessing discharge arrangements at Windscale. We believe that discharges should now be cut to a minimum.
The new arrangements that have been introduced during recent months, which I am told will be fully implemented in the next two years, are not sufficient.


They do not satisfy us. It is not a question of vast resources being required to introduce these lower standards. Last week we were clearly told that a future reprocessing or, indeed, nuclear plant can build into its construction specifications adequate provisions for ALATA at little extra expense—perhaps between 5 and 8 per cent. That is a small amount to ensure that my constituents are happy and that the people of the country generally can feel satisfied that we are required to pay not too high a price.
I ask the Minister to take on board these earnest desires of my constituents, the people of Cumbria and, indeed, of the Western Isles who have been complaining about the movement of this material in the sea. Action must be taken; and it is needed urgently. I ask the Minister to follow that route.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that the concern being expressed calls to constituents in the Western Isles, and it calls equally to the constituents in my constituency. When the Secretary of State for the Environment came to the Dispatch Box a few weeks ago to comment on current developments at Sellafield, one of the disappointing aspects of his statement was his less than positive indication that there would be increased scope for the inquiry to take into account the kind of fears being expressed in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), and in my constituency. I add my strong support to the plea to counter natural public anxiety and, if the Government believe in the nuclear industry, to place it on a better public footing. If the scope of the inquiry were extended, it would lead to results that could clear up existing problems, and do much to allay public anxiety about the nuclear industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer the House a positive statement in his reply.
I welcome the good fortune of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) in moving a debate on the important Royal Commission Report on Environmental Pollution. The right hon. Member for Western Isles has referred to the problem of acid rain, so I do not intend to say much on that question. However, I was gratified to receive an assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland in a letter to me, pointing out some of the concerns that have been expressed. He acknowledges that the evidence is limited, and that concern has not been widespread among such bodies as the Highland river purification board and the Forestry Commission in Scotland. I was glad to have the Minister's acknowledgement that we cannot afford to be complacent, and I concur with the Minister's view. As the hon. Member for Western Isles pointed out, public concern must be taken seriously on the matter of acid rain.
In fairness, a balance must be put on record. There has been considerable criticism of the Department of the Environment for its attitude to this issue, particularly by the Nordic countries. If we are Europeans—and, as the Minister knows, the Liberal group is certainly European, although I would not presume to speak for other political groups—I hope that we will be more responsive to the other countries in Europe which are showing a better lead on this issue than is the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall be responsive to the points made.
Obviously, in constituencies such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, another major worry is pollution of the coastline. Having just spent a weekend in the Lochalsh area of the Isle of Skye, I know that there is plenty of coastline over which to be concerned.
I ask the Minister to give a helpful nudge to some of his colleagues, particularly at the Department of Transport, which seems to have assumed resonsibility for some aspects of the coastline in our area.
The background to this problem is lengthy. As long ago as 1979, the West Highlands Free Press, which is based in Skye, reported that the then junior Minister at the Department of Trade, Lord Trethgarne, had said that
the Government is using pressure and influence to try to arrange for oil tankers to avoid the Minch and to go around the west of the Hebrides"—
west of a major crude oil spillage, were one of those tankers to go aground or be involved in a collision. The matter had been raised by the Earl of Cromarty, who said:
any spillage of oil in these narrow waters would result in appalling pollution of mainland and islands coasts and destroy still further our already depleted fish stocks." —[Official Report, House of Lords; Vol. 402, c. 71.]
There will be considerable support for those sentiments.
That was in 1979. My predecessor for the part of the constituency which includes the Isle of Skye—the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) —corresponded with the Department of Trade on this issue. In November 1980, the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade said:
There have been a number of discussions between my officials and representatives of the Western Islands council about navigational arrangements in that locality. This resulted in agreement on the desirability of introducing a traffic separation scheme in the Minches.
The desirability of such a scheme is somewhat dubious, to say the least. A better alternative in those straits would be a total re-routeing.
Since 1979, when the statement was first made in the House of Lords, several hon. Members have applied pressure, and we still do not have a decision. The parcel seems to have been passed from the Department of Trade on that occasion to the Department of Transport. The Secretary of State for Transport answered a written question of mine on 30 January. I asked:
when he will be in a position to institute recommended routes for very large crude carrying oil tankers west of the Hebrides and clear of the Minch.
He replied:
I will be making a statement fairly soon." —[Official Report, 30 January 1984, Vol. 53, c. 8.]
Given the Under-Secretary of State for Trade's statement in the House of Lords in 1979 that something would be done "fairly soon", it is not unreasonable to express the increasing anxiety. If the Minister can now nudge his colleagues at the Department of Transport, that will be very much welcomed in that part of Scotland.
We very much welcome the report on the west of Scotland, provided that many of its recommendations are implemented. I agree with the right hon. Member for Western Isles that research into environmental pollution cannot be divorced from the Government's overall economic policies.
One of the saddest things is how few of the Royal Commission's recommendations, in successive reports, have been implemented. In January 1976, for example, it submitted its fifth report, on air pollution, to a Labour Government that still had three years to run. Six years


later, in December 1982, a Tory Government in their third year of office finally replied, rejecting many of the principal recommendations. That sort of response devalues the exercise. Neither the seventh report on agriculture, nor the eighth, on oil pollution, dating from 1979 and 1981 respectively, has yet received an adequate response from the Government.
Only the ninth report, with its principal recommendation on lead, was accepted, and that within one hour of publication. The proximity of a general election seemed to concentrate minds more than other reports had done. One hopes that ministerial minds will be concentrated by this debate, especially on the Government's overall policies which have led to civil service cuts. As Business Environment pointed out in December 1982,
the Air and Noise Divisions, and the Directorate of Rural Affairs had all fared about twice as badly as the Civil service average, and the Directorate on Science and Research Policy five times as badly".
That is also the track record of successive Governments over the Royal Commission reports. We hope that the recommendations of this report will receive a favourable response and that the constituency points that I have brought to the Minister's attention will be dealt with as soon as possible.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for enabling us to nudge the Minister and his Department as they prepare the response which is to be presented to us in a few months to an excellent and readable report. It is a tribute not only to the members of the Royal Commission but to those who supplied them with information that we have another comprehensive review of environmental matters to supplement the specific reports of the past.
Even if the House is thinly attended at this hour, those hon. Members present at least represent a growing "green alliance" across party lines intent on keeping up pressure on the Department to ensure that past slippages on environmental matters are not allowed to remain uncorrected as part of the Government's track record.
We have an ethical responsibility in this place, which is shared by the Government, to be responsible stewards of our environment. The Royal Commission makes that point clearly.
A publication by a party that is not yet represented in this place——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Social Democratic party.

Mr. Hughes: No — the Ecology party — recently referred to my party and others as being
reactionary, symptom-orientated, revisionary environmentalists".
None of us would like to be tarred with that brush, even if we understood the allegation, and we hope in this debate to present the Government with a list of actions for them to embark on.
As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, we owe a great deal to the increasing work and competence, expertise and diligence of groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, who the Royal Commission says have now made it impossible for the Government to say that debate and pressure on Government Departments are not in the public interest.

Often it is the campaigning efforts of those groups in past years which have made environmental issues acquire their present importance.
A few matters have not been touched on by other hon. Members, and I urge the Under-Secretary of State to reflect and act on them in the months, rather than years ahead. The Royal Commission makes the valid point that environmental matters should be considered not only in energy policy and planning, but in strategic planning—the Government appear to have lost their conviction for the necessity of this aspect—when considering land use, in development and in local plans. Public inquiry inspectors and, in due course, the Secretary of State, should take into account pollution control and the environmental effects of planning and development.
Complaints are made regularly that an inquiry—for example, by the Department of Transport into road extensions, by the Department of the Environment into the building of office space, or by the Department of Energy into Sizewell — does not take environmental aspects sufficiently into account. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will at least contemplate whether there could be statutory obligations on inspectors at inquiries to consider environmental effects and the implications for people living in the region and the nation as a whole.
It is clear from the report that one of the great benefits of our membership of the Community is that Britain is pushed by its Community neighbours into doing what we should have done some time previously. Acid rain is an obvious example of where trans-frontier pollution cannot appropriately be dealt with by one country on its own. It is of benefit to all countries if research costs are shared and control mechanisms are developed together. It is a sad reflection on the Government that Britain is often the party among the European Community nations which has most dragged its feet — for example, in the implementation agreement and of directives and in the agreement of resolutions. The Under-Secretary of State should consider the view strongly expressed by the Royal Commission that it does little good for Britain's international standing for us to be the most reluctant ally in Europe in environmental matters.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) rightly referred to the need to ensure that those institutes of excellence which have expertise in research and other fields are continued. We all accept that we do not want to force the Government to spend enormous amounts of money when the environmental justification for that action has not been proved. Previously, the Under-Secretary of State has given voice to the argument—he may do so again tonight—that we cannot spend the money until we know that it will be properly invested. Of course, we accept that. People in London particularly fear that the scientific services branch of bodies such as the GLC is to be abolished, with no obvious replacement. The only proposal that I have heard is that the City should take over the grant, but that does not seem to be the most appropriate forum.
It is important that the Government realise that bodies in metropolitan areas, such as the GLC, have the necessary investment, personnel and expertise which small authorities do not have. They should continue and be allowed to carry out their roles effectively.
Mention has been made — I pass over this point briefly — of the Royal Commission's specific recommendations on transport matters. It is not difficult to


initiate quick action on the specific recommendations on control by local authorities and the Government of emissions from diesel vehicles. This is a problem, especially in urban areas. At present the level of pollution is determined by the degree of maintenance of vehicles. A well-maintained vehicle, which does not emit much smoke, causes less pollution, but there are no measures to impose this smoke control. Although this matter does not relate necessarily and only to the Department of the Environment, measures should be taken to give local authorities the power to act fairly quickly.
One general theme that runs through the report is, however, more important than specific matters. It is introduced by an appropriate quotation from Adlai Stevenson at the head of one of the chapters, which states:
Government … cannot be wiser than the people.
In a book produced a few years ago under the auspices of the National Consumer Council two examples are given of the secrecy in environmental matters which has bugged the debate and clouded the waters of progress for many years.
In 1977 the Department of the Environment published the report of an interdepartmental group dealing with environmental matters. It contained some sound conclusions, but on investigation no one was allowed to be told which Departments had contributed and in what way.
In November 1979 a Cabinet document was leaked and published in The Sunday Times. It stated that an aim of the Department of the Environment should be to reduce over-sensitivity to environmental questions amongst the public in general. That should not be the aim. One of the effective things that the Royal Commission report does is to show that almost all the arguments advanced in favour of secrecy by bodies such as ICI and the CBI are invalid. The Royal Commission report is firm in saying that the veil of secrecy should be lifted.
We have the ludicrous position, which has been referred to, that, under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which unfortunately has not yet been fully implemented, despite Government promises that part was to be implemented by July 1983, there is a list of 10 matters of which I believe one only has been introduced. The Act provides for information in cases of water pollution, but there is still a bar on the disclosure of information on air pollution. It is a paradox that one part of the environmental debate should be subject to such rigorous controls, while the Government support the Control of Pollution Act, which is of potential use in lifting the veil in other areas.
The radioactive waste sites contemplated by the Department are still unknown. There are many other examples of secrecy that I ask the Government to disclose for the first time. As the Royal Commission said:
The principle of open and informed debate is preferable to bland, unsubstantiated, official assurances and secrecy — particularly the half-kept secret—fuels fears.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to the alarm often caused in his constituency by the secrecy surrounding the nuclear process. Asbestos in schools is another example.
The public must now be accepted — I should be grateful if the Minister would say this—as having a right, analogous to their right to light when they occupy a building, to pure air and pure water and to be able to obtain information on how far the air and the water are

being degraded and what the Government are doing about it. It is a cross-party interest and it should be a cross-departmental responsibility. The Government must move more quickly in the future than they have in the past.

Dr. David Clark: I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for the opportunity that he has given us to debate a report that the Opposition broadly welcome. The report is a tour d'horizon. It tries to see how we have fared in the environmental sphere over the past 14 years and highlights the more immediate problems for the future.
I shall try not to repeat the points that have already been made by hon. Members on both sides, but I want to draw some points to the attention of the House. I usually agree with many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), but I could not go all the way with him in his praise of the Government on the report.
As I read the report, I draw a rather different conclusion. The report is critical of the Government, as I shall attempt to show. Nowhere is it more critical of the Government than on international environmental matters. There is no doubt that we are now regarded as the laggards of Europe with regard to the environment. I have compared our present status with what it was when the first report was published in 1971. At the time of the Stockholm conference, in 1972, Britain was in the van in environmental matters. It is sad that now we should be the laggards.
Yet, at the same time, many of the environmental problems that we face are of an international dimension. A dozen years ago we were talking mainly about concepts that were basically national. We talked about cleaning up the rivers and removing the spoil heaps. Those were entirely domestic issues, but now, as we have solved some of the problems, we are faced with international problems. It is sad that the Government are the laggards when it comes to trans-boundary pollution and attempts to deal with it.
If hon. Members think that that is just the jaundiced view of an Opposition Member, I shall quote a couple of comments from the Royal Commission. I do not take them out of context. Chapter 1.24 states that the commission is
worried, however, that the United Kingdom's commitment to international action has not always been as strong as it might have been … We see a need for more positive attitudes and a willingness to seize the initiative … to give a lead internationally on the best possible practice in tackling pollution.
The Commission comes back to that theme in chapter 3.26, where it states:
we believe that it"—
the British Government—
needs to demonstrate a more positive attitude towards environmental measures in its international negotiations … Foresight and prudence also suggest that the United Kingdom should reappraise its stance on irretrievable discharges to the sea of toxic substances".
That is said time and again in the report. I call upon the Government to take heed of the message from both sides of the House—that we want Britain to stop being the laggard and to start giving the lead once again on international matters.
A good place to start would be on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)—the sea. As the main island in Europe, we


have a great contribution to make. Last Wednesday I challenged the Secretary of State on the Royal Commission's attitude. I asked whether the commission was wrong when it stated that the United Kingdom, with its long coastline and strong tide, sees both environmental and economic advantages in making use of the capacity of the sea to take up waste material. That is the Government's stance, according to the commission. Is the commission right or wrong? If it is right, what will the Government do about that?
Last Wednesday, I also put it to the Secretary of State that we came out of the London dumping convention as the most reactionary nation and signatory. We were even overtaken by the United States — the Reagan Administration which has not had the best of reputations in this area.
Will the Government ratify the Marpol convention? Will they take pollution in the North sea much more seriously? There is not only the dumping of normal toxic waste; but currents and tide movements are interesting. The radioactivity from the western side of England is carried around by the currents, and affects the North sea, the east coast and the Norwegian coast. It is now time for us to take action.
I associate myself with the comments on Greenpeace of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. It has done an excellent job in drawing to the attention of the British public the facts not revealed by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., although it was acting in the best of interests.
Last Wednesday the Secretary of State said that the Government had taken action on colliery waste off the Durham coastline. If so, it was very quick action. Will the Minister tell us exactly what action was taken between publication of the report and the Secretary of State's reply to me last week?
We have been told that the Government intend to attend the conference convened by the west Germans on the North sea and the sea generally. We believe that they are going rather reluctantly and that a preliminary conference in the United Kingdom is needed to co-ordinate and formalise a common approach with regard to the North sea.
In the remaining minute or two at my disposal I shall not deal with acid rain at length. I presume that time will be found for a general debate on EEC draft regulation 6386/83, so that we may have a full, fair and frank debate on pollution on that occasion. Nevertheless, I must tell the Government that we find their approach to the acid rain problem utterly unacceptable and contrary to the conclusions of the Royal Commission.
Time and again, the report refers to the growing evidence of increasing acidity in Great Britain, as well as acknowledging the problems in Scandinavia. Yet the Minister wrote to me saying that
there is still much uncertainty about the connection between polluting emissions and adverse environmental effects.
Let him tell that to the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Scots, the people of Northumberland and Cumbria and the Royal Commission whose conclusions are completely different.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): No.

Dr. Clark: If the Minister does not believe me, I shall give him the evidence. Paragraph 5.81 states that
there is evidence of a trend of increasing acidity over the last few decades in parts of Great Britain".
The preceding paragraph states that

It is now generally accepted that the background concentrations found in the United Kingdom reduce the yield of some crops, although the magnitude of the effect is uncertain.
Paragraph 5.84 states:
While most records of the effects of acidification of freshwaters have come from Scandinavia and North America, we are aware of increasing evidence of effects in the United Kingdom.
I could go on and on, but I do not wish to take the Minister's time. All the evidence is there and it is time that the Government faced it—[Interruption.] I am willing to argue about this all night, but I want to give the Minister a fair chance to reply. The evidence is in the report. Members who ask where it is cannot have read the report. The evidence is there, just as it is in all the other scientific documents on the subject.
It is time that the Government took urgent action on this matter, instead of just accepting a five-year pilot scheme.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I was a little disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), first, because he seemed to try to bring the debate down to the usual knockabout party political level that we had avoided until then and, secondly, because it is a misinterpretation of the report—I assure him that I have read it, and other speeches were more accurate on this aspect—to say that the Royal Commission thought that there was an easy answer to acid rain. It states that
we recommend that high priority should be given to research on acid deposition, in particular on the causes and effects, on the interaction with other pollutants, and on the remedial action.
It is not a simple game. The hon. Gentleman was not up to his usual level in giving me virtually no time to reply and in trying to pretend that these things are extremely simple. It is not even so simple to say that we are the laggards in Europe. When the United Kingdom accepts a European directive or regulation, we pass it into our law and enforce it. As we know from the work of Nigel Haigh and others, that is not always the case in Europe. We take European Community legislation seriously.
As a throwaway line, the hon. Gentleman said that it was his party's policy to do away with the EQO regime on water pollution. I hope that he has discussed this with his union colleagues and with the CBI, as it is a major revolution in United Kingdom thinking. [Interruption.] That is what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) introduced his speech in a useful way, showing that virtue does not always reside on one side of the House and that some progress has been made under Governments of both parties. I recommend to hon. Members the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics," which has just appeared. It shows that progress has been made under all Governments even the Government which was kept in power for a while by the Liberal party. Progress has been made in the control of sulphur levels. The first picture in the document is a dramatic illustration of the decline of the quantity of smoke in the atmosphere in this country by 80 per cent. in the past 20 years. There have been improvements in water quality, air quality and other areas. We should not denigrate the achievements of some of our formidable predecessors, even though much remains to be done.
I have copious notes about the points that have been made, but I do not have time to deal with them all. I shall try to write to hon. Members in reply, and I hope that in many cases I shall be able to give a positive response.
More wise in this respect than the hon. Member for South Shields the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was aware of the work of Dr. Kinsman on acid deposition. There is growing evidence of the effect of acidification on water and soil, but many complexities remain in connection with the time scales involved and the effects on different soil structures. I and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) took part in "Weekend World" recently. We were shown an acidified lake in Scotland. I am advised that that lake probably acidified in the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s. Very long time scales are involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) made a good point about the effect on buildings. Since the recent report on acid deposition, we have started to fill in the gaps. We accepted the recommendation that we must fill in the gaps in monitoring, so that we know what is going on in the towns. Interesting work has been done in the City of London. It has been said that the City of London could not be expected to take on any of the work of the GLC, but those who know of the work of the scientists working for the City know that they are among the leading authorities on these matters in London. They took the lead in London in banning sulphur fuel in central heating and fuel burning. I am in correspondence with those scientists about whether that decision was right or wrong, but clearly they know their onions and should not be dismissed. Many other matters have been mentioned. I apologise to hon. Members for passing over so many good points so quickly.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland ended with a remark with which I have great sympathy. He referred to the importance of pollution abatement technology. We are—as other parties have done—trying to take steps to revitalise pollution abatement technology. This week the Duke of Edinburgh is to present the first prizes for the new pollution abatement technology award scheme, which my Department has promoted in conjuction with the Confederation of British Industry, the Royal Society of Arts and the ERAS foundation. That is a reminder of the length of time for which we have been considering these matters in this country. The first such award was given by the Royal Society of Arts in 1768. It was a prize for the control of smoke pollution in London. There has been continuity, and there have been achievements in the past.
The management of radioactive nuclear waste is at the top of all our minds. I should like to correct one slip of the tongue by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. NIREX is not a regulatory body; it is an executive agency. The Radioactive Wastes Management Advisory Committee is the advisory body, and my Department and

the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have the regulatory functions. That is right, because they are directly responsible to the House.
After I had counted to 11, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said, "And now for my ninth point." I arrived at a total of 12 points, many of which I can respond to now.
My hon. Friend asked whether we were getting on with the second part of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I assure him that we shall bring forward the necessary orders in the next couple of months to bring its regulative parts into action.
Many hon. Members have talked about secrecy. In this area, above all, the presumption must be in favour of openness. There was one comment that I strongly supported. I suspect that it came from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) because his clarity and, if I might say so without embarrassing him and getting him into reselection difficulties, courage on these issues is known to us all. He said that we must build confidence again by openness and without minimising the fact that, in the process, we might worry people. If people know nothing, what the eye does not see the heart does not grieve over, but if information emerges people are initially more worried than before. We have to go through that phase. As the hon. Gentleman was generous to say, that has been the Government's approach at Sellafield. We felt that, at every stage, we had to be wholly open, even though it might have been easier not to be. That will remain our approach and we must extend it to all environmental matters. I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman on several of his other points, as I cannot cover them all now.
Motor vehicle emissions will obviously be at the top of the Europenan agenda in the next few months. I can give the commitment that we do not think it would be sensible to add to the list other carcinogenic substances to remove lead. The principal point advanced by the hon. Member for Workington was the relationship between ALARA and ALATA. I sympathise with him. He knows that it is my view that it is useful to my Department that there are plants at lower levels than Sellafield. That helps us to push that plant, as many of its managers and workers want, to progress. More modern plants being able to achieve higher standards is a helpful indicator of what modern technology can do.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked several questions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been on the Front Bench throughout the debate, knowing that there would be a large Scottish dimension to the debate. I shall pass on to him the points that the hon. Gentleman made about oil spillage.
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for an interesting debate, to which I have been able to respond only inadequately. I shall try to respond by letter to the specific points to which, in many cases, I have only been able to refer in my speech.

Orders of the Day — Hamilton College

Mr. George Robertson: Unlike the normal beneficiary of the Consolidated Fund Bill draw, I feel no great pleasure in raising the subject of Hamilton college of education. Of course I value the opportunity to air the issues involved and to draw attention to one of the main scandals of the Government's term of office, but I approach the subject with a profound sense of sadness. It is sadness at the loss of a fine college of education that made a significant contribution to education in Lanarkshire by the training of teachers from Lanarkshire for Lanarkshire.
The devastating report of the Public Accounts Committee simply underlines the betrayal of public opinion throughout Scotland at the closure of a fine educational resource. It is sadness, most of all, because in this final saga we now have unbiased evidence that concurs with what we have charged the Government all along—incompetence, recklessness and culpable neglect of the public interest in disposing of the fine buildings and land of the college they have butchered.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Whence does the hon. Gentleman derive that information, and on what evidence does he base his statements?

Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Lady will wait, she will find out how I arrived at that conclusion, which was as also arrived at by the bulk of the Scottish media and public.
As I drive along the Bothwell road in Hamilton and look through the Hamilton palace gates, I feel an overwhelming sadness at the waste of opportunity, resources and public money that are represented by those buildings which are now a private school and a property speculator's windfall.
Under that sadness, I share the burning sense of anger that the people of Lanarkshire feel about those who did the deed; those who resolutely stood against united and deeply felt public opinion; those who rejected the plain public interest, and threw away for a trivial amount the college and its grounds to satisfy their need to escape the nagging reminder of their political ineptitude.
One irony about the debate is that the Minister who will reply—the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) played a distinguished part in 1980 in assisting us with the campaign to keep open Hamilton college. I record my thanks to him this evening, however embarrassing it may be to him, for the part that he played in the campaign. To emphasise that, I quote from what the Minister said in the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in December 1980:
My purpose is limited and single: to express to the Committee and to the Government the concern, anxiety and opposition of a large number of my constituents to the proposal to close Hamilton college.
He concluded a fine speech by saying:
The decision to close Hamilton college has touched a raw nerve in the body politic of the west of Scotland. Many who are sympathetic to the Government— Conservatives or independents—believe that a number of questions still need answers." —[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 9 December 1980; c. 18–20.]
What the Minister said then is still true. He knows in himself, if not in his brief tonight, that the same anxiety, concern and opposition to the handling of the sale of the

college exists in the west of Scotland and way beyond. People believe, as he said then, that a number of questions must still be answered.
Some of the questions were answered by the Public Accounts Committee, to whose report I draw the attention of the House. In doing so, I hope that the Minister can give the House a somewhat better response from the Government than we have heard so far. Stonewalling did not allay public concern. Bland put-downs and delaying tactics have not persuaded a genuinely troubled public that Ministers were acting in the public interest. Nor will the suddenly published Treasury minute this afternoon do much. Until now the Scottish Office chose to hide behind the protocol that it could say nothing until the Treasury minute was produced.
What was that protocol? The Government hid behind it as they waited for the Treasury to cough up the minute that we saw this afternoon, but the indicted Minister—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), who is of course absent this evening — had no such inhibition. He held a press conference after the publication of the report, and appeared on television defending himself and the decisions that he took. He said that Opposition Members who had criticised him were "stupid and ignorant", and he made a feeble case in his defence.
Today we have the official Government response, produced out of a hat from Treasury Chambers in time for this debate. It is an attempt at a whitewash, but it is not successful, because the dirt still shows through. It is a half apology that admits some of the more glaring mistakes and concedes that procedures will change. That is some progress, but still no one seems to take the blame, and the Scottish Office continues to hide behind the small print and the technicalities. The full force of the criticism of the Public Accounts Committee is unanswered, because it is unanswerable. Gross errors were made, and the changes in procedure underline that, but their effect must be to lose the public purse at least £5·5 million.
Somebody has to take responsibility, and Ministers, who are the political masters of the Department, must carry the can. The unvarnished truth of the PAC report on this lamentable fiasco is barely dealt with by this reply. A comparison of the case that it makes with this threadbare and wholly inadequate response shows who the public should believe.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Is the main burden of the hon. Gentleman's criticism that there was a procedural error or that the college was given away, as he has claimed, for a song?

Mr. Robertson: It is nice to see so many Conservative Members taking an interest in the Hamilton college case, which has been around for a long time. However belated, I welcome them to the debate. I hope that they have read the PAC report, which they have been picking up all afternoon quite spontaneously.

Mr. Hirst: Answer the question.

Mr. Robertson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that criticism of the Government is on both grounds. The hon. Gentleman can take his seat and listen to the rest of the case in silence.
This is no ordinary report. It was not a partisan inquiry. It cannot be shrugged off as a Labour vendetta, a grudge campaign or a political assassination. It is a thorough,


considered, detailed and heavyweight inquiry into the way in which Ministers went about selling a publicly-owned asset and managed to get only a tenth of its value back for the taxpayer. It is a damning indictment of the incompetence and fecklessness of those in public office charged with protecting the public interest. It is——

Mr. Barry Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the normal custom or rule about reading speeches in the Chamber? Is it in order to read speeches in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Hon. Members are allowed to refresh their memory from notes, albeit copious ones on occasions.

Mr. Robertson: The price that was obtained for the college was bad enough, but what the Public Accounts Committee most strongly condemned, and in language unprecedented for it, was the way in which the sale was conducted. It is on this score that no real defence has been offered or is available. That is what makes the complacency, the indifference and the contempt of the then Minister all the more indefensible and inexplicable. That is why The Scotsman called it
a tale of fecklessness, bungling and appalling irresponsibility".
That is why the Glasgow Herald called it
an appalling sequence of administrative ineptitude".
The report sets out its case with devastating clarity. The Halliday committee, which was formed after the previous scandal involving the sale of hospital land at Robroyston and the huge profits obtained there, made recommendations that were accepted by the Scottish Office in 1981, and the Secretary of State specifically accepted the use of professional selling agents in future land transactions. Ministers were advised to use an estate agency, but they chose to let the college be marketed by a firm of Glasgow solicitors with no real experience or reputation in selling commercial property of the size and value of the college site. Not only that, but the Ministers allowed the estate to be handed to a firm of solicitors, of which one of the senior partners had only just been appointed by the Secretary of State to the Jordanhill board of governors. A declaration was made, quite properly, by Mr. Pate, the solicitor in question, but for the Scottish Education Department and the Minister to have allowed even the possibility of a duality of interest to arise shows how sloppy, at best, the handling of the event was.
The chief valuer for Scotland was overruled, the solicitors' office of the Scottish Office was overruled, but still nobody will take the blame. Ministers were advised, by an expert who knew that it cost £2 million to build the college, that its replacement cost would be £20 million, but the chief valuer thought that it should fetch £6 million.
When I put forward such a figure earlier, the Minister simply sneered. In an Adjournment debate in November 1982, the present Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, then Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, told me:
With respect, the scandal and 'sorry and squalid episode' to which the hon. Gentleman referred consist in the fact that he has topped up and exaggerated the figure. That is the scandal. That is the irresponsibility of which he accuses the Government"— [Official Report, 24 November 1982; Vol. 32 c. 989.]
That was said by a Minister who had seen the chief valuer's figures, who had been told to readvertise but who

had accepted offers of one tenth of the real valuation. Yet, he had the nerve to describe my amateur and personal, but remarkably accurate, valuation as a scandal.
The report makes it clear that the property was inadequately advertised and, more seriously, that it was never readvertised. It says:
This appears to have been a more limited and more passive effort that the Chief Valuer would have expected from an experienced estate agency.
It goes on:
We find it most surprising that … the Scottish Education Department once again rejected the Chief Valuer's advice to use estate agents in conjunction with the District Valuer to apply a much greater marketing effort.
If that were not enough, here comes the crunch:
They decided to sell at a bottom of the market price.
Those were not my words, but the solemn and unanimous verdict of an all-party Committee of the House of Commons. How can such criticisms be brushed aside?

Mrs. McCurley: Does the fact that a prospectus was prepared and distributed to 40 interested parties, and that 15 of those parties were genuinely interested in taking up the offer, not suggest that those who prepared the prospectus knew precisely what they were doing professionally?

Mr. Robertson: The Scottish Office briefing may have convinced the hon. Lady, but it did not persuade the Comptroller and Auditor General, nor the members of the Public Accounts Committee, on which there is a majority of Conservatives. I must keep repeating that I am using as the main plank of my argument the PAC report.

Several Hon. Members: ose——

Mr. Robertson: It looks as though we have the Scottish Office choir on the Conservative Benches tonight. If it were not for the presence of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), I would call them the Scottish Office male voice choir, but they sing not at all in harmony.
After 24 devastating paragraphs, the report's conclusion leaves no room for doubt. It says:
We consider that in taking this approach, SED failed to ensure that everything possible was done, particularly through determined exploration of possibilities for alternative use of development, to market the property adequately.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Robertson: I repeat, to pacify Conservative Members, that they are not my words or the words of the Labour Opposition, but the words of the Public Accounts Committee in a unanimous report. In the light of that report, if the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry continues to hold ministerial office, after such a verdict on his stewardship, what will be left in question will be not just his reputation, or what little is left of it, but the integrity of ministerial office itself.
If he stays in post, the principle of ministerial responsibility will have been replaced by the new principle of passing the buck and shifting the blame. Nobody subject to the criticism contained in this report could remain in any other job outside this House. It will debase the idea of honour and decency in political life of he allows himself, or is allowed, to continue holding a position of public trust. The questioning must not stop yet. Some aspects of this sorry episode still remain to be cleared up.
One of the beneficiaries of the Government's largesse with the public purse was Miller Homes Northern Ltd.,


which purchased the residences at the college and a sizeable slice of the land. The firm paid £410,000 for the 600-room complex. The terms of purchase were outstandingly generous even by the standard of this bungled affair.

Mr. Hirst: I direct the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 380 of the report, in which Mr. Gilchrist, the chief valuer, was constrained to admit that
if lots of builders looked at them, … Miller … has possibly paid a fair market price.
Will the hon. Gentleman justify the contention that he is advancing that Miller had the flats at give-away price?

Mr. Robertson: Paragraph 380 states:
if lots of builders looked at them and rejected them and Miller was the only builder who felt he could do something, he has possibly paid a fair market price.

Mr. Hirst: Read on.

Mr. Robertson: The words "if" and "possibly" appear in that reply. I rely on the verdict that is set out in the report of the Committee of Public Accounts. The Committee considered all the evidence, and its unanimous report is the basis of my case.
No attempt was made to readvertise the residences when it was clear that they were an entirely different proposition from the college itself. Even an uninformed guess would have been based on them being an eminently more marketable proposition than the college. However, the Miller offer, even though it was not the largest, was accepted by the Government.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Yes, on conditions.

Mr. Robertson: In addition, Miller was not required to pay up until detailed planning permission had been obtained, despite the fact that the largest offer for the entire complex had been rejected precisely because of a precondition that planning permission be obtained. Miller was to have a risk-free period of up to one year with security and maintenance paid by the Government. There was a budget of £180,000 for a property that was sold for £410,000. That goes beyond generosity and becomes suspicious. The cost turned out to be £106,000 and that year, during which Miller had the option to pull out altogether from the deal, the net return to the taxpayer was only £304,000. But now we know that Miller will make a profit, even on its own figures, of probably over £2 million, although it could well be in excess of £3·5 million —[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a three-hour debate and hon. Members will have the chance to catch my eye and to advance their arguments in debate. I hope that they will restrain themselves until they are called to contribute to the debate.

Mr. McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I respect your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but is it right that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) should give the House fictitious figures which are not based on proof? The hon. Gentleman is making a statement——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not unusual in this place for hon. Members to quote figures which are challenged by other hon. Members. If the hon. Gentleman

thinks that certain figures should be challenged, I hope that he will seek to challenge them in debate and not by means of spurious and bogus points of order.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A more spurious point of order could not have been invented. The figures that are available have been examined at considerable length by the Public Accounts Committee. They are based on figures that were supplied by Miller. I repeat that Miller will make a profit, even on its own figures, of well over £2 million. The profit could well be in excess of £3·5 million. This will represent as much profit to Miller as it has made in total over the past three years of trading. Miller has made a profit of less than the likely outturn of the Hamilton college deal over the past three years and we have the right to ask questions of the Government about the transparent generosity of the deal for the residences and the windfall of the speculators, and how it is that Miller is the beneficiary of this surprising and lavish treatment.
I wish to deal with what happens next. We now know that the procedures will be changed in the light of the harsh criticisms of the CPA's report. So they should. What is most worrying is what remains on the record — the astonishing remarks of the Minister, following the publication of the report, and the similarly astonishing remarks of the secretary of the Scottish Education Department, in paragraph 415 of the CPA report:
with hindsight I do not think that we would have acted any differently than we have done".
That strikes an incredible comparison with what her Majesty's Treasury said today, in language that must be remarkable for Treasury draftsmen:
There are lessons to be learned from the sale of Hamilton college".
They talk of "regrets" and of
accepting that before reaching the decisions to approve the sale they should have explored more thoroughly …
It says that the Department
should have attempted to reconcile the views of the governing body and the advice of the Chief Valuer",
although only a few months ago the secretary of the Scottish Education Department told us that
with hindsight I do not think that we would have acted any differently than we have done".
The Treasury minute says that there are lessons to be learnt. We hope that those lessons have been learnt, and that those who have not learnt are not left in positions of trust.
Tonight's debate has provided an appropriate occasion to highlight the betrayal of the public interest that this case represents. It also provided an opportunity for those responsible for that betrayal to be called to account. Over the years, it has been an honourable tradition that Ministers, with whom the buck stops, accept responsibility for the mistakes of their Departments. Many have taken that honourable route. Lord Carrington and his team at the Foreign Office are the most recent to have chosen to do the right thing. One has to be big enough to shoulder responsibility. A Minister has to have enough dignity and courage to say, "I was to blame and I accept the responsibility." It is necessary to have guts to accept the full obligations of public office. Not everyone has those qualities, and many lesser men will choose to brazen it out, shift the blame and pass the buck, ignorant of the effect that that will have on public confidence in Government as a whole. The mediocre will rarely accept blame, and will prefer to see the charges drift into the obscurity of time.


It remains to be seen whether the Ministers on whose head the blame for this sad fiasco lies will take the route of honour or the route of unprincipled expediency.
However, it is the Prime Minister who must ultimately decide whether she can retain Ministers whose judgment is proven to be so flawed and whose view of rules and expert advice is so cavalier. It is she who will have to decide whether the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose rubber stamp endorsed each stage of this saga, is to go scot-free and without stain on his character. It is for her to decide whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, if he continues to scuttle from the blame, is to remain as a Minister for a crucial area of business policy, where cool judgment and careful attention to detail—the very qualities manifestly absent in this case — are essential.
I put it to the Prime Minister, as the custodian of the reputation of the Government as a whole, that this scandal has perceptibly weakened confidence in the essential competence and ability of her representatives at the Scottish Office. By the judgment, not of the Opposition, not of the people of Lanarkshire, not just of the whole Scottish press and the bulk of the public, but of a unanimous investigation of an all-party Committee of this House, with a Conservative majority, one of her Government Departments, and the Ministers who are responsible for it, have been guilty of a reckless neglect of the public interest. It is up to the Prime Minister to ensure that those proven to be unfit to hold high office depart from it, and depart from it soon.

Sir Hector Monro: If that was a full-blown attack on the Government it must have been one of the most pathetic that any hon. Member has ever heard. Even by the use of every adjective in the dictionary, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) failed to dent the reputation of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry one little bit. I cannot but feel that the hon. Gentleman's attack was based on prejudice. The fact that Hamilton college is now a private school and private housing development must be anathema to him. His attack has fallen flat. It must be sad to him that he has only been supported by two of his Back-Bench hon. Friends who represent Scotland. If it were such a contentious issue for Scotland, I should have thought that at least 40 of his hon. Friends would have supported him on the Labour Benches tonight, perhaps stirred up by the tremendously flat impact of their conference at the weekend.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Scottish Office put out a three-line whip on the Scottish parliamentary Tory group?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman must be terribly disappointed in his party. It is no use him trying to suggest that we are here for any reason other than pure voluntary enthusiasm to put the case right.
It was rather significant that the hon. Member for Hamilton never bothered to quote the first sentence of the first conclusion in paragraph 25, which said that there can be no certainty what price would have been obtained for Hamilton college if other ideas had been fulfilled. That is crucial. He tends to forget that any object for sale is only

worth what the market will pay on the day of the sale. It is no use him quoting what the buildings cost to build or what they may cost to replace. It is what they were worth in the market at the time of sale that is important.

Mr. John Maxton: rose——

Sir Hector Monro: I really made a decision on 1 January that I would not give way to the hon. Gentleman and I shall reaffirm that on April Fool's day in order to save him from further embarrassment. However, as a special concession, I shall do so tonight.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman has given a remarkable introduction. As an ex-Minister with responsibility for sport, would he care to put a value on a swimming pool, a sports hall and two gymnasia?

Sir Hector Monro: The value would be what anybody would pay for them. It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that something is worth £3 million or £4 million if no one will give that money. It is the value on the open market that is the relevance of the whole issue.
Hon. Members have failed to take account of the fact that the two higher offers that were put in both required planning permission and building consent. To obtain any one of those would have taken a considerable time.
The hon. Member for Hamilton does not seem to have read the report. That says that it would take £325,000 a year for the care and maintenance while the buildings were lying empty and unsold. That has to be taken into account when considering the Government's actions to obtain a quick sale.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I may be being a little unfair and the hon. Gentleman may be about to develop the point, but I want to be clear on his attitude. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not accept the criticisms of the PAC report, that he does not think that they were valid, and that he does not accept the implied criticisms in the Treasury note issued today? When he says that no dent has been made on the Minister's reputation, is he saying that the sale was handled properly and that the chief valuer for Scotland's advice was properly disregarded?

Sir Hector Monro: I am developing my speech, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and my hon. Friends will be able to make speeches on this point. The issue, as I have said, is the market value of the property on the day of sale. Other aspects of a sale negotiation may be hypothetical, and whether it should have been put out to estate agents, as opposed to the customary solicitor-type of sale in Scotland, may be a valid point of the hon. Member for Garscadden. However, whether that would have produced a higher sale value is open to doubt, with reference to paragraph 25 of the conclusion of the report. The hon. Gentleman seems to read only what he wants to read in the report. The issue is one of the market value.
The only issue relative to the report about which I think there is some valid criticism concerns whether the Scottish Education Department should have considered going to estate agents rather than to solicitors. That having been said, with reference to paragraph 25, would an estate agent have obtained more than the 40 inquiries that the solicitor achieved? In the case of a specialised property such as this, in an area such as Hamilton, would there have been a great rush of applicants to buy, if other methods had been used?


There is no indication in the report that that would have been so. Indeed, paragraph 25 confirms that there is no justification for thinking that there would have been a flock of willing buyers who would have come rushing forward, had they had greater knowledge of the possibility of the sale.

Mr. Dewar: rose——

Sir Hector Monro: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Garscadden, because I have every expectation that he will speak at length before the end of the debate.

Mr. Gerald Malone: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the practice whereby most people interested in buying specialised property of this kind would in any event register their interest with a firm of estate agents which would see an advertisement of the type that appeared in connection with this college, and would advise its clients with an interest accordingly to make an offer?

Sir Hector Monro: What my hon. Friend says, with his legal knowledge, is very likely to be true.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asked me earlier for the valuation of the swimming pool, but he did not inquire in the question whether I was aware of the cost to a likely purchaser of running a swimming pool. One has to bear in mind the important issue that that type of specialised equipment is not valuable, unless resources are available from the ratepayer or the rate support grant to run such a facility of specialised construction. The key issue that hon. Gentlemen seem not to appreciate is that, even if the Opposition aver that the building was worth £3 million, £4 million or £5 million, there is no indication that anyone would have come forward to pay that sort of money for this type of property.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Sir Hector Monro: The important point to remember is that, with the sale made in the circumstances that it was made, very expensive annual upkeep costs would have been incurred while the sale was being considered over a period of time.
At the end of the day, Labour Members may say that the Hamilton area now has a valuable school to add to its other advantages and many more houses available, which also is a worthy objective. It is unfair to criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) who took the best advice he had and who moved forward with the sale as quickly as possible.

12 midnight

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow,Cathcart): I have two involvements with this report—

Mr. McQuarrie: Are we now to hear from Glasgow academy?

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member is seeking to finish off the pairing system.
First, I am a member the PAC, and one of those who questioned the senior officials from the Scottish Education Department and the office of the Chief Valuation Officer for Scotland. Let us remember that the figure of £6 million is the valuation that the Chief Valuation Officer for Scotland put on that property—

Mr. McQuarrie: Where is that?

Mr. Maxton: —as the price that he would expect to get —I am seeking to be reasonable—"in favourable circs". Those are his exact words in the report.
Secondly, I used to be employed in that college as a lecturer. Some hon. Members may feel that that makes me slightly prejudiced.

Mr. Henderson: I have seen no evidence that the Select Committee interrogated the people handling the sale on behalf of the governors, or the governors themselves. Why did not the Committee take that course?

Mr. Maxton: Since the hon. Member was in the House before and returned to it at the same time as I did, he should have a better idea of how the PAC operates. It questions the senior officer of the Department involved—the accounting officer. It does not normally call in anyone else, which would mean a considerably longer investigation than this one was. Very rarely would it question someone such as the principal of the college, the chairman of the board of governors or the people on the working party which arranged the sale. That is the normal operation of the Committee. This report is a powerful report; I agree that it is not worded as some reports are worded.
I may be slightly prejudiced, but I am the member of the PAC — even my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will accept this—who knows those buildings intimately, who knows what was involved in the sale and what was being given away by the SED and the Minister. The college has a swimming pool, a games bar, two gymnasia and a magnificent hall with almost the facilities of a small theatre. There are many teaching rooms, plus science laboratories. There is a whole arts floor. One room was at one time equipped as a television studio. And that is only the main building: it does not include the halls of residence or the flats. It does not include the playing fields, the refectory or the kitchens.
The Government gave away this enormous building, with all its magnificent facilities, for half the cost of building a nine-classroom primary school, with normal facilities, in Northern Ireland. That is what a private school was permitted to pay for the building.

Mrs. McCurley: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to claim sufficient expertise to be able to assess not only the value of the college but also its condition? Such considerations can apply to all sorts of buildings that are surplus to requirements. Can he assess the value of the swimming pool, for instance, in the light of depreciation and all the other factors to be taken into account in the refurbishment and rehabilitation of such a building?

Mr. Maxton: Of course I would not claim to be an expert in valuation, but the swimming pool was closed for about eight months for total refurbishment just before I was elected in May 1979. I could no longer swim every day, so I took up jogging in order to maintain my exercise. Of course one must take account of depreciation, but by that time it was an almost completely new swimming pool. It had been refurbished from top to bottom, and its value had been increased even more.
Those facilities were sold off, as I say, for half the price of building a primary school with nine classrooms in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the education authority made no offer for the premises?

Mr. Maxton: Certainly. I was going to deal with that point later, but I shall do so now if the Minister is determined that I should.
Strathclyde education committee, Hamilton district council and practically every other relevant body in Scotland, including the Minister himself, had opposed the closure of that college and taking it out of the public sector—[Interruption.] The Minister should let me continue. Strathclyde region council hoped that, by refusing to make an offer, it could force the SED to use it for educational purposes.

Mr. Hirst: That is not in the report.

Mr. Maxton: This debate is not just about the report; it is on the disposal of Hamilton college.
I want to deal with the broader issues as well.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the cavalier way in which Tory Members are approaching this matter an affront to the seven Tory members of the PAC, who supported the Committee's recommendations and who provided some of the most vociferous questioning during our investigations? It was they who said how strongly they felt about the way in which this matter had been handled. How many Conservative Members have asked their colleagues what happened during the Committee's proceedings? If they had done so, they would not be sitting so arrogantly in the Chamber.

Mr. Maxton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is correct. This is a unanimous report, and Conservative Members fully supported it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, tried to squirm away from that fact by saying, "They are English Members and do not understand what goes on in Scotland." I was a member of that Committee, and I assure Conservative Members that their colleagues took a careful interest in this matter. They studied it carefully, and knew what was happening.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is always reminding the House of the differences between Scotland and England. Will he comment on the fact that recently in Perth a massive complex has been built for the General Accident Fire and Life Insurance Corporation Ltd.? The corporation makes no secret of the fact that the complex cost about £30 million. If that property were sold, it would fetch about £10 million, because no one else in Scotland would want a complex of that size. That corporation wants to be in Scotland, but it has no market. It should get a tax reduction.

Mr. Maxton: That makes the point. The Chief Valuation Officer for Scotland said that it would cost £20 million to build Hamilton college now. He was saying, "If we can get £6 million for it, we are doing quite well". That is similiar to the position of the complex built by the General Accident Insurance Fire and Life Corporation. I do not know why Conservatives are continuing in that way. Hamilton college was sold for £600,000, but that does not seem to worry Conservative Members. It is difficult to find terms that are sufficiently harsh to describe them. They have been whipped into the Chamber. They are obliged to protect a Conservative Member from the

attacks by a Committee on which there was a majority of Conservative Members who understand better than the Conservative Members in the Chamber what is involved.
Conservative Members are interested in cash terms, market value and what can be obtained from sales. I am interested in the facilities' value to the community, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton represents, and in which I live. The sporting and other facilities in Hamilton college could have been used by the local authority. Conservative Members might say that none of them made a bid. It is true that neither Strathclyde region nor Hamilton district council made a bid in the initial stages. They had a fair idea that the valuation put on the facilities was £6 million. When the Government knew that the bid was £600,000 and the chief valuer was saying "re-advertise", the Government made not one approach—this is in the report, and no one can deny it — to Strathclyde region or Hamilton district council about their views on the sale. They were not asked whether they were interested in purchasing at that price. The local authorities had assumed, especially because of the cash limits imposed on them, that the price might be in millions of pounds, not hundreds of thousands of pounds. They rightly assumed that.

Mr. Hirst: Why?

Mr. Maxton: Because they had their own experts, architects and staff, and they know the values of buildings and how much it would cost to build a secondary school. Strathclyde regional council is well aware of how much it will cost to build a secondary school in Hamilton because it is going to build one less than a quarter of a mile away from the college. It knew the value of buildings. It may not be £6 million, but it is a great deal more than £600,000. Strathclyde regional council expected to pay a great deal more.
The Government did not make one attempt to return to the Jordanhill board of governors — I blame the Government, not the board of governors because they have no power—or to the local authority to say, "This is the bid that we are thinking of accepting at present. Are you interested in it at that price?"
I shall name another organisation which might have been equally interested at that price—the National and Local Government Officers Association. For the past 10 years it has used the college during the summer for courses to train its officers. One would have thought that under those circumstances the Government or the seller would have approached it directly and said, "You are a regular user. Are you interested in this?"

Mr. Hirst: rose——

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is grinning, but I can assure him that when NALGO's officers saw the advertisement they did not bother to apply for the brochure because they assumed the price would be in millions.

Mr. Bill Walker: They were wrong.

Mr. Maxton: Perhaps they were wrong.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. If NALGO had been responsible for putting in a bid for £750,000, which was in excess of what Christian schools and Miller homes offered, would he have approved or condemned it as throwing away money?

Mr. Maxton: If a higher offer had been put in I would have expected it to have been accepted by the Government. They should have made more effort to sell the college. They made no effort, and did not even take the highest offer when it was available. It is in this report and the Treasury minute that they did not take the highest offer. Hon. Members say that it was because of the conditions. Miller homes put down conditions and the Government accepted the bid. I will come to that matter. There was a sale and the Government did not make the effort to approach an organisation which had used the building for 10 years and say to it, "Are you interested?"
NALGO has said that if it had known what price the building would go for, it would have approached other trade unions to consider whether they could put in a bid and use it for some form of training college for the trade union movement in Scotland. NALGO told me that, and it told the PAC by means of a letter to the Comptroller and Auditor General, of which I have seen a copy.
There is a case to answer. There is the problem of the advertisements and much has been made of the number of brochures taken up. It is not the Opposition, or the PAC which Conservative Members seem to think is biased against their hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but the Halliday committee as a result of a sale that took place under a Labour Government—I do not deny that—laid down certain rules. It was set up in Scotland to make recommendations about Scottish sales, not sales in England, and it recommended that consultations should take place with the local planning authority to discover what was available. That was done perfuntorily and was not repeated and continued in this case. Second, it was recommended that the sale should be put in the hands of an estate agent and not left in the hands of other selling bodies. I accept that solicitors sell properties in Scotland. [Interruption.] The sale was advertised not just in Scotland, but in England and Wales. The Chief Valuation Officer for Scotland and the Halliday report both said that the sale should be in the hands of an estate agent qualified to deal with such problems.

Mrs. McCurley: indicated dissent——

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Lady is shaking her head again, but is she saying that the Halliday report, the Chief Valuer, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the PAC are all wrong?

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall take up just one point, as I hope to speak later, when I shall raise others. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 7 of the PAC's report, at paragraph 313. Mr. Mitchell was questioned on the Halliday report, and he made it clear that the report was based purely on Crown property. At that time that college did not belong to the Crown but was owned by the Jordanhill governors, who had total responsibility, given to them by the Secretary of State for Scotland, for selling the property. Therefore, the Halliday report was not relevant to that sale.

Mr. Maxton: I do not know how far the hon. Gentleman has gone in his research, but if he read paragraph 2 of the Treasury minute, approved by the Scottish Office, he would see that it states that
The department accepts that, although Professor Halliday's report dealt solely with the disposal of National Health Service property, its recommendations should in principle apply to the

disposal of other Crown property and of the property of public bodies where the proceeds of sale are to go to or otherwise relieve the Exchequer.
That is clear. That is what should have happened. The Halliday report laid it down——

Mr. McQuarrie: It said "should".

Mr. Maxton: Conservative Members are grasping at straws.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman is the one who is grasping at straws.

Mr. Maxton: Conservative Members are now quibbling over words such as "should", but the fact is that the Halliday report laid it down that estate agents should be used, even if we accept the point that the sale might have been in the hands of solicitors. Did they handle the sale as efficiently as they might? Again, the answer is no. The advertisements were put into a limited number of newspapers at a bad time of the year. The one that was placed in The Times in the new year was not even put in on the day when commercial property is normally advertised in The Times. It is astonishing that the opportunity was not taken to use the proper day to advertise such property. The advertisement was tucked away. I do not know whether Conservative Members have bothered to look at The Times to see what the advertisement was like. Most people who are looking for specialised property would not look through those advertisements on that day. When people are looking for a job, they look at the Glasgow Herald or The Scotsman on one day. If they are looking for a house, they look on another day. They do not bother to look at the advertisements on other days. That is the way in which the newspapers operate.
Those concerned did not advertise in The Times on the proper day or take advantage of the discounts available—perhaps a minor point—by advertising in The Sunday Times as well as The Times. Much more important they did not advertise in the professional commercial press. The advertisement was not in the Estates Times, which is an important avenue of advertising for those who wish to sell commercial properties. No Conservative Member in his right mind would try to sell such a property without advertising in the commercial press.
Therefore, even if we accept that the solicitors could have done the job, they did it extremely badly. Moreover, having gone back to the chief valuer for advice, they did not simply ignore it. They did worse than that. The instruction to sell was given before the advice was received. What greater insult is there to a fellow civil servant than telling him about the offers and asking his advice on how to proceed and then selling the property before receiving his advice? Conservative Members are very quiet now, because they cannot deny those facts. The entire sale was bungled from start to finish. It is a disgraceful episode. One must now ask why.
The Public Accounts Committee interviews only the Accounting Officer and his assistants. It does not call Ministers. I hope that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, of which a number of Conservative Members here today are members, will now investigate the ministerial involvement in this and try to find the truth.
The report leaves us with the feeling that this was a bungling mistake by the Scottish Office which, with the board of Jordanhill governors, managed to mess the whole


thing up and obtain such a ridiculously low price. I believe that that is grossly unfair to the civil servants. I believe that those who came before the Public Accounts Committee had an extremely difficult job to do — defending the indefensible without involving their political masters. I do not believe that that was their responsibility — constitutionally it is certainly not their responsibility—because I do not believe that they took the decisions.
I believe that the decisions were taken by the Ministers involved. I cannot believe that after 18 months of incredible controversy, during which virtually every organisation in Scotland and even some Conservative Members, condemned the Government for the closure of the college and the way in which it was done, the Minister told his civil servants that he wanted nothing more to do with the matter and that they should get on and handle the sale so that his hands would be clean. I believe that he told them — before Conservative Members start jumping about, I should say that this, of course, is not in the report —that so long as the building stood empty it was an embarrassment and that they should get shot of it as rapidly as possible.

Mrs. McCurley: Will the hon. Gentleman finally tell me where the bloke was, with £6 million in his wallet, who was to buy the college?

Mr. Maxton: I cannot answer that question. If the Scottish Education Department had made more effort, I might have been able to answer it. I am not a professional seller of commercial properties. I do not know where the market is. I believe that the Scottish Education Department did not make the effort which was needed and which the CPA expected it to make.
I believe that the Minister said, "Get shot of that building as fast as possible." He knew that the longer it stood empty—an eyesore in the middle of Hamilton—the more strongly people would be reminded about the closure and the fact that the building could still be being used for education in some form or other.
I know that Government Members will make strange noises when I say this, but the offer for the building to be opened as a private school was a good solution from the Minister's point of view. He could not only get rid of an embarrassing building but, by keeping it in educational use, he could embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton" the Labour party and me. That is what the Minister hoped would happen. I am sure that in 30 years' time, when—in our secretive society—the records are finally opened, it will appear that that was how it was. The Minister told his civil servants to cause the maximum amount of embarrassment. He did not give a damn what the price was. He decided to get rid of the main building to the private school and of the residences to whomever could make the largest profit out of them. It was a shady deal done by a shady Minister. The sooner he is removed from the Government, the better it will be for them. While he remains in the Government, the credibility and morale of the Government in Scotland — which are at a remarkably low ebb—will continue to worsen.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Looking at the Opposition Benches tonight, I can count on one hand the number of hon. Members

there. Yet I believe that at least 17 hon. Members signed the motion. Where are the hon. Members who forced us to hold this debate?

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The number of hon. Members who signed a particular motion is not public knowledge. I wonder whether the hon. Lady would care to tell you where she obtained that information.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not aware of how many hon. Members put their names to motions, and I am not sure that that is a point of order for me.

Mr. George Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is making a direct claim that 17 hon. Members submitted an application for the present debate. That information is held only by Mr. Speaker. Surely it is not in order for the hon. Lady to make such allegations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If that number of applications had been made, that information is in the possession of Mr. Speaker. I do not know how many hon. Members signed the motion, and — to the best of my knowledge — nor does any other hon. Member. However, it is not unusual for hon. Members to make questionable assertions.

Mrs. McCurley: We have been allowed a three-hour debate on this subject, so I assume that a large number of hon. Members must have applied for the debate.
It was no surprise to me to find that this subject was to be debated tonight, because I expect that the publication today of the Treasury minute on the ninth report of the PAC comes as a welcome surprise to the Opposition.
I have been aware of the vulture-like activity in the corridors of the House for weeks. The Opposition have been poised over this morsel of carrion ready to tear it apart, and we are hearing the cries tonight. It is notable that, like vultures, they often cry the loudest when there is little meat. I welcome the minute. It reflects the anxieties that we all share about the disposal of public assets. All care must be taken to ensure a just and fair deal by appropriate methods. Nobody is more anxious than me to see that that happens. With the exception of the phrase that the Department should have been responsible for reconciling the views of the governing body and the advice of chief valuer, the minute virtually exonerates the Scottish Office, contrary to the protestations of Opposition Members.
What were the opposing views that were not reconciled? The first was that in Scotland, in a quite normal practice, a firm of solicitors was invited to sell the property. It is a firm of solicitors, the stature of which is not in dispute. Indeed, it was responsible for training the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that the firm remembers him well. It is frequently involved in the disposal and sale of property and is retained by the largest college of education in Scotland. It produced a detailed prospectus that conforms to the suggestions in the Halliday report. It is suggested in paragraph 86 that an estate agent should have been engaged. That suggests an attack on the status and competence of this long established firm.

Mr. Dewar: Like the case of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), I understand that the hon. Lady's case is really that there was nothing wrong in the


Halliday committee's recommendations being overlooked. Why does she think that the Government, in the Treasury minute, say that they will take steps
to ensure that the recommendations of the Halliday committee are appropriately applied in future"?
Is she saying that she disagrees with that?

Mrs. McCurley: No. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee and what the Committee says, the difference between what is said in the report and what is said in the minute is substantial and exonerates the Scottish Office.
The other half of the equation was that the chief valuer hinted that a value of £6 million could be put on the college in the best possible circumstances for the seller—in other words, the top end of a buoyant market. As I have attempted to confirm with people in the estate agency business, the market at the time was depressed, not at all buoyant. Such highly specialised property was not in great demand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) said, if someone was in the market for such a property, he would not have been scanning the newspapers, he would have had his name on an estate agent's books. The property was not in great demand. Despite the fact that 40 prospectuses were issued, only 15 inquiries were made, and many weeks passed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that the purchasers got a bargain. However, the condition of the property must be borne in mind. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) does not seem to understand that. There were also problems associated with refurbishing the buildings. Taking into account the state of the market and maintenance costs of £325,000 per year, is it surprising that acceptance of the bid was on the cards?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, an object is valued only at the price that someone will pay for it. 'The fact that the experience of keeping property under care and maintenance is a nightmare cannot be lost on people. One example is Killearn hospital, which costs thousands of pounds each year to maintain. Nothing has been done about it, but I hope that something is done shortly.
The result is that 300 children have been removed from the state education budget since the Christian schools took over Hamilton college—that is one of the best uses that I can think of for it. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Gray of Contin said in another place that he had no evidence to suggest that a better price would have been obtained had different procedures been followed. It is hypothetical to suggest that an estate agent would have obtained a better price than did the solicitor involved.

Mr. George Robertson: As to the care and maintenance of the property, the Government agreed to maintain and secure the residences for up to one year, and they made provision in the budget for £180,000 to do that. Would it not have been more sensible, given that the chief valuation officer for Scotland had recommended re-advertisement, to use that year for re-advertising instead of throwing that money down the drain by allowing Miller Homes to retain its hold on the property, while the state paid for the care and maintenance of the residences?

Mrs. McCurley: Is it not the case, however, that there had been several offers for the college but that the

conditions under which the college could be sold were impossible to fulfil? There were many problems with planning permission that prevented the sale.
The most severe fault in the report was that the Treasury was not offered the advice of the chief valuer, because there might have been a reconsideration of the sale. This is one issue on which I agree, and agreed in the past, with the hon. Member for Hamilton. However, we might not have been considering Hamilton college tonight; it might have been Craigie college or Falkirk college. The Opposition should not over-emphasise their distress in the circumstances, since their peccadillos are being aired tonight. Robroyston hospital was the scandal of its day; it was valued at £770,000, sold for £410,000 and shortly afterwards a small portion of the property was resold for £2 million.
No one has discussed the role of the chief valuer, who has sounded so far to be in a deified position. I have looked at some of the chief valuer's comments in the Halliday report, and in paragraph 78 it would appear that he was in an anomalous position on Robroyston, and in some ways was not above making mistakes. I would not bank on everything that he says. Although Hamilton college and Robroyston cannot be considered on a similar basis, the principles are the same. The general tenor would appear to be that the sales observed the terms and conditions of the Halliday report. It is beholden on all hon. Members to urge that in future, the disposal of all public property is done with due care and consideration. However, some of the outrageous comments being made by Opposition Members about the sale of Hamilton college, and the inaccuracies that they have bandied about, must be challenged and put on the line.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: This is not the first time that the competence of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), to hold ministerial office has been challenged in the House, or the first time that he has been accused of incompetence or other imperfections — to say the least — in dealing with Scottish colleges of education. I remember a meeting that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) had with the hon. Gentleman when he was in charge of education at the Scottish Office. At that meeting there were present representatives of the Callendar park college of education, and senior civil servants at the Scottish Education Department. We received a commitment, afterwards confirmed in writing, that there would be no change in the structure of the Scottish college education system, at least until a consultative document was published.
That was one of the many commitments given by that Minister which he later broke. There was no consulative document, and as we know, the college of education system in Scotland was butchered, including the closure of Callendar park college of education. That building is in my constituency as a result of the boundary changes and now we have this public scandal about the sale of Hamilton college.
As my hon. Friends have said, the Public Accounts Committee has issued a report. I understand that at the press conference when the report was presented by the Chairman, although he is not a man who uses extravagent words, he said that this was probably the strongest, most


critical report that the PAC had ever produced in its history. It has a long history of service to the House. I am only sorry that Conservative Members do not seem to appreciate that there is a Conservative majority on the Committee and that the report is unanimous. When they criticise the findings of the PAC, they are criticising members of the Conservative parliamentary party.
The Committee was told that the chief valuer for Scotland thought that the sale might realise £3 million for the college block, and £3 million for the halls of residence. The Scottish Education Department apparently rejected the advice of the chief valuer and of the Government solicitor and ignored the recommendation of the Halliday report. As the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) said, the Halliday report was about hospital buildings, following the Robroyston scandal.
It was hoped by many hon. Members that, following the publication of that report, greater care would be taken over the disposal of public assets, whether they were owned directly by the Government, or indirectly through the governors of the colleges of education, or whatever. In any case, such properties are public property, for which the Secretary of State has a responsibility, and if he is determined to sell off public property, in whatever circumstances, he should do his best to realise the maximum value and to see that there is benefit to the public purse.
In view of the sale for £680,000, it is possible—we can never be certain—that because of the negligence and incompetence of people at the Scottish Office, more than £5 million was lost to the public purse. That is a serious charge against a Government who claim to have great control over public spending and who want to ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent. They are always groaning and moaning about too much public expenditure, but they lost an opportunity here to add to the public purse. They were guilty either of gross incompetence or of deliberate public asset-stripping, especially as those who benefited from the deal were a private school on the one hand and a private housing developer, Miller Homes, on the other, and I understand that Miller Homes could make £2 million or more out of it. Who was responsible? There seems to have been gross incompetence at a senior level at the Scottish Office.
The head of the Scottish Education Department gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee and, as I listened to it, I could hardly believe my ears. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked:
May I revert to the question of the Halliday provisions. Do you think, with the benefit of hindsight, that your interpretation of these rules and their applicability was in this case perhaps too constricted and that it would have been better to have abided by the Halliday Committee procedures?
Mr. Mitchell replied:
No, with hindsight I do not think that we would have acted any differently than we have done.
That was an astonishing reply, for Mr. Mitchell was saying that, given the same set of circumstances, the SED would behave in exactly the same way.

Mr. Dewar: I appreciate the importance of the point that my hon. Friend is making. Will he, in fairness, accept that the Treasury obviously also thought that Mr.

Mitchell's statement was unbelievable, because the Treasury minute has made it clear that it will ensure that it never happens again and that the Halliday procedures will be followed?

Mr. Canavan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I should have thought that the head of the Scottish Education Department could have eaten some humble pie when giving evidence and said, in effect, "Sorry, but we made a mistake. We will try to ensure that we do not make the same mistake again." Instead, we had the sheer arrogance, in effect, of him shrugging his shoulders and saying, "We would do exactly the same again, given the same set of circumstances." However, as I understand that Mr. Mitchell is retiring or being transferred, I shall not pursue the matter.
In any event, I have always understood that, apart from senior civil servants being held responsible for what they do or do not do, the ultimate responsibility rests with the Minister. In this case there were two Ministers, the Secretary of State, the overall head of the Scottish Office, and the hon. Gentleman who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, neither of whom has seen fit to come here tonight to give an explanation for his conduct, and that is a disgrace. I hope that even hon. Members who are not present will note that fact when they read the Official Report of these proceedings.
There is a rather peculiar connection between the Secretary of State and Mr. Louis Pate. Mr. Pate was appointed by the Secretary of State to the board of governors two months before the decision was taken to put the sale of Hamilton college buildings into the hands of his firm, Wright Johnson and McKenzie, of which he is the senior partner. According to the Daily Mirror of last Thursday, one of the most prestigious clients of Wright Johnson and McKenzie is Tennant Caledonian, the brewers, a director of which was the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the Secretary of State for Scotland, until virtually his appointment as Secretary of State in 1979. — [HON. MEMBERS: "Dear, dear."] Conservative Members are saying "Dear, dear." It is terrible when someone tells the House the truth. If the appointment of Mr. Pate was above board and had nothing to do with the facts that I have mentioned, why was Mr. Pate appointed to the board of governors at that time? What was his qualification? What contribution has he ever made to Scottish education, especially to the colleges of education.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am not trying to detract from what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Mr. Pate, because I accept that he is making a pertinent point, but will he agree that the firm with which Mr. Pate is connected, and of which he is a partner, acted as solicitors to the Jordanhill governors before Mr. Pate's appointment as a governor?

Mr. Canavan: It has already been said that the sale of the college would probably have been better handled by an estate agent rather than left with a firm of solicitors. It seems suspicious to objective people such as myself that Mr. Pate just happened to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It just happened that his firm was the firm of solicitors normally used by the board of governors.
It seems that the entire affair stinks. Many questions remain unanswered and I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will supply the answers to some of them, if not all. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows that no


one is after his blood. However, the facts that have been discovered so far by the Public Accounts Committee and the lack of positive response from the Scottish Office, are such that at least one ministerial resignation should take place. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is now supposed to be looking after consumer affairs, having been head of a department which mishandled the use of valuable public assets. To my mind, he is incompetent and unfit to hold ministerial office. If he does not have the decency voluntarily to tender his resignation, the Prime Minister should sack him.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I know that some of my hon. Friends felt that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) had made some outrageous remarks this evening. I understand their feelings, but I would say that when they have been in this place for rather longer they will discover that, by his normal standards, the hon. Gentleman was in a statesmanlike mood this evening.
The weakness of the position of the Scottish Education Department arises from the fact that normal procedures were not carried out. No one has argued that they were carried out. Normal procedures were not adopted. They should have been adopted, or, if not, all those who did not adopt them clearly placed themselves at risk of substantial criticism from this House.
We must question further and ask, "Would the answer have been different, had the proper procedures been carried out?" The Select Committee tells us that there is no answer to that question. We just do not know.
Opposition Members have sought, quite legitimately, to place the responsibility firmly on my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), who was the Minister responsible at the time. Nowhere in the Select Committee report was there anything to say where and at what level the decisions about proper procedures were taken. That makes it difficult finally to decide where the responsibility should lie. Clearly, a Minister is responsible for the decisions of his Department.

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is making fair points and what he says is perfectly reasonable, but he underestimates the procedures adopted by the PAC, which are to investigate dealings within a Department. Historically, the principle has always been that if decisions are taken by the Department, the Minister is the only one who can be responsible to the House of Commons.

Mr. Henderson: I accept that. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) explained to the House earlier, there are limitations on what the PAC normally does by way of investigation. All I am saying is that, having properly brought out the fact that the correct procedures were not carried out, it is in many ways unfortunate that the House does not have the benefit of a deeper inquiry into why and at what level decisions were taken not to carry out the proper procedures.
The speeches of Opposition Members were not based entirely on what the Select Committee told us or on the Government's response in the Treasury minute. Hon. Gentlemen took a great leap beyond that, and started to quote other people's views about what should happen or who was responsible. What they said was not based on the evidence that came from the Select Committee report.
We do not know from the Select Committee's report —the most authoritative report that we have had so far — where in fact — as opposed to the constitutional position—the decision was made, and who made it, not to follow the procedural advice. Lacking that information, hon. Gentlemen go a little too far in assuming that the Minister himself was responsible.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: I am trying to make a brief speech.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman is a senior member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Will he perhaps take up my suggestion that the Select Committee might now look at the involvement of Ministers in this affair in an attempt to get to the bottom of the matter?

Mr. Henderson: That is a matter for the Select Committee, not for me as an individual member of it. The hon. Gentleman is capable of making his own suggestions about the future course of inquiries of the Select Committee.
The second major issue to emerge—it is unfortunate that we do not have more information than that which comes from the PAC—is the implication in the report that it would have been better if an estate agent, rather than a solicitor, had handled the matter. As far as I know, the report makes no criticism of the firm of solicitors that was engaged. That is important. It is speculation, no more, as to whether a firm of estate agents or solicitors is better able to handle this type of business. I do not know the answer. I certainly do not find it surprising that in Scotland solicitors were employed. I do not find it surprising that a Committee composed almost, but not entirely, of Englishmen felt that estate agents would be more normal. A Scottish Committee might have taken a different view on balance. Therefore, I do not find that criticism very convincing.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cathcart for telling us about the limitations of the PAC in regard to those whom it interrogates. It was unfortunate that someone who was being criticised was not interrogated by the Committee in order to find out whether that criticism is merited.
Finally, the PAC has not given a full assessment of the way in which the Scottish Education Department carried out its financial analysis of the benefits of selling at a particular price as opposed to selling at a better price that might arise if it waited longer. Undoubtedly, the cost of keeping property in the hope that a better bid might come along is an important part of the equation and depends on judgment. I have already said that those who are responsible for the decisions clearly put themselves at risk of criticsm by not following the procedures, but it does not necessarily follow that they were wrong to accept an offer that had been made and could be taken. At the end of the day, value, as opposed to cost, is only what someone is, prepared to pay.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: First, it is fair to say that Labour Members have endeavoured throughout this campaign to assassinate the character of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. Fletcher), now the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. This is not the first occasion on which the matter has been raised. This is a scurrilous attack by Labour


Members because the evidence in the report on which today's debate is founded in no way, part, or section criticises my hon. Friend.
We must establish right away that the sale of Hamilton college followed the decision to close it. The title to the property was transferred to the board of governors of Jordanhill college of education which was instructed to sell it subject to the Secretary of State's consent. At that stage a joint Jordanhill SED committee was set up to deal with the disposal and to ensure that the SED was party to all decisions.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) gave us a statement made by the chief valuer for Scotland. He said that the chief valuer of Scotland thought that the sale might realise £3 million from the main college block and £3 million from the halls of residence. What he did not say, but what is vital and should have been said, was that the chief valuer also stressed that these were not firm opinions and presented only a possible outcome based on conditions most favourable to the seller. In other words, as has been said by my hon. Friends, if there is no buyer for a property, the seller has to take what is available to him.

Mr. Canavan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there was an onus on the seller, in this case the Government, to try to get the best possible price, and, quite obviously in this instance, they did not do everything possible to get the best price because they ignored the advice of the chief valuer and their solicitor?

Mr. McQuarrie: With respect to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, they did not ignore the advice of the solicitor, nor did they ignore the advice of the chief valuer. They took the advice of the solicitor. When the chief valuer wrote to the Scottish Education Department suggesting several points that were not satisfactory, arising out of the bid which had been made, he said in his letter of 5 August:
The total of around £6 million referred to in our letter of 9 December 1981 represented the possible outcome in a situation most favourable to the sellers. That situation did not apparently apply.
The paragraphs are there, and they are the proof. I am trying to put before the House that Opposition Members have come forward with a fictitious figure of £6 million based upon——

Mr. Maxton: rose——

Mr. McQuarrie: —a hypothetical figure which has been set out by the chief valuer, but he has qualified that hypothetical figure on every occasion by insisting that it could only be based on conditions favourable to the seller.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member cannot claim that £6 million is a fictitious figure. It is in the report. It is clear that is what the chief valuer said. The qualification is accepted. Indeed, every Opposition Member has accepted that qualification. No Opposition Member has attempted to say that, in every circumstance, that is the figure that should be reached, but one has to remember—and I think the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) was a builder—that the building value, in other words, the replacement value, was £20million, and it was not even going to reach the price that it would cost to replace it. The figure of £6 million was not, in fact, a particularly high figure.

Mr. McQuarrie: The figure of £20 million is a red herring, for the simple reason that Hamilton college was not going to be replaced. It was quite evident from the information from Hamilton district council and Strathclyde regional council that, because of the amount of education property available to those authorities, they had no intention of buying. The position that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) put before the House earlier, that the Strathclyde regional council did not put in a bid, for the reason that it thought it would force the issue with the Government on the basis of taking over the building, is absolute nonsense. It is clearly laid down, as evidenced in the report — and it is a report that Opposition Members consistently throw in our teeth—that the Strathclyde regional council had no intention of buying it, and neither did Hamilton district council.
As to the £6 million, I refer the House to the oral question that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 28 February:
Will the Prime Minister take time, between her meetings, to read the ninth report of the Public Accounts Committee, on the sale of Hamilton college of education? Will she reflect on the fact that the Minister responsible for taking the decisions that gained the unanimous censure of the Public Accounts Committee, and who lost the taxpayer more than £5 million." — [Official Report, 28 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 135.]
I will not continue, because it is the £5 million with which I wish to deal. How could anyone suggest that £5 million was lost to the taxpayer when there was no taker for the buildings? This is the vital question in the debate. If there is no buyer, other than the one on offer, then that one is the only one the Government are in a position to accept.

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes much of this point. He should look carefully at the Treasury minute. The burden of criticism in the report of the Committee of Public Accounts is of the procedures that were used, and the casual way in which the Scottish Education Department went about selling the college. Of course nobody knows what precise figure could have been obtained at the end of the day, but the chief valuer (Scotland) who is employed by the Treasury—hardly the most radical in its view of the valuation of anything — concluded that it was worth approximately £6 million. I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman, who is a reasonable man, to the fact that the Treasury Minister now accepts that the procedures were not right, and it is the Treasury that is saying that the procedures will be changed. The procedures were wrong, so the chances are that there would have been something substantial in excess of the figure obtained, had the Treasury gone about it in the right way.

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way again. A small point is all right, but I am not interested in hearing another speech from hon. Members who have already spoken.
In paragraph 313 of the report, Mr. Mitchell, the Secretary of the Scottish Education Department, said of the Halliday report:
May I correct you, Chairman, with respect. The Halliday report was concerned with the sale of hospital property by the Secretary of State, in other words it was Crown property. In the case of Hamilton College, it was not Crown property".

Mr. Norman Hogg: rose——

Mr. McQuarrie: No, I will not give way.

Mr. John McWilliam: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has made it absolutely clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. McQuarrie: I have given way enough. Mr. Mitchell also said:
Having said that, we certainly accept that the guidance and recommendations given in the Halliday report had some bearing on this case and we took very serious account of its recommendations.
No Labour Member has mentioned the fact that the Department considered the Halliday report, although it was not obliged to do so.
I have read this report very carefully. I am sorry to say this of civil servants who cannot answer back——

Mr. Dewar: rose——

Mr. McQuarrie: No, I will not give way.
I say this with the greatest regret, but it is clear from the evidence that the Minister was misled by his officials throughout this sorry history.
In questioning those officials, and this evening, the hon. Member for Cathcart raised the question whether NALGO would have purchased this property. In Committee, it was said that NALGO might have done so if it had known the offer which had been made. If NALGO was seriously interested in any part of the college, it would have been one of the 40 people and organisations that sent for the brochure, one of the 10 which were shown around the college, one of the four which made a direct——

Mr. Maxton: rose——

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way. I have given way often enough.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. McQuarrie.

Mr. McQuarrie: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Maxton.

Mr. Maxton: If the hon. Gentleman saw an advertisement offering a Rolls-Royce — he will know more about Rolls-Royces than I ever will—for £25,000, he might decide not to reply because it was way beyond his means. However, if he later discovered that it was sold for £5,000, which was well within his reach, he might think that he had been slightly swindled or diddled on the deal.

Mr. McQuarrie: Once again, that is an interesting hypothetical example. As I have said — the hon. Gentleman apparently cannot take this on board — NALGO had the same opportunity as any other bidder but did not take it.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, because I can help him? I wish to declare an interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, as you say, I represent NALGO. That appears in the Register of Members' Interests.
Shortly after this evidence became public, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) had a meeting with the education officer of NALGO. The position put to us was exactly the same as my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart has just explained. That is NALGO's position—that it would have considered making an offer for the college if it had

thought that the price was going to be anything like the figure for which it was sold. It would have offered much more, because it would have taken a much more responsible attitude to a public sector asset.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful for that intervention, because it brings us back to the very point that I am trying to get over to the hon. Member for Cathcart. If NALGO had been seriously interested in the property, it would have bid for it and not waited until it was told the price by someone else. That is all right for local authorities or public bodies, but the hon. Member knows that in Scotland, when we have no upset price, which is a competitive price——

Mr. George Robertson: Do we not?

Mr. McQuarrie: I said "when" we have no upset price, not "as" we have no upset price. The market was being tested in this case. With no upset price, it would have been normal for NALGO to make its bid and not wait for a later opportunity.
Mention has been made of the profits which are possible in this matter. In the PAC, the hon. Member for Cathcart mentioned the cost to Miller Homes of converting these buildings into luxury apartments. In paragraph 377 on page 13, he said:
One would not expect that it was going to cost £18,500 to convert each flat to luxury standards.
Mr. Gilchrist replied:
I am not really in a position to say whether it is a fair cost or not.
As the hon. Member for Cathcart said, I am a builder. I know that a luxury kitchen costs at least £10,000 and a luxury bathroom suite £5,000. Those two items go a long way towards making apartments luxury apartments. That is £15,000 of his £18,500, so it would cost a lot more than that to make the buildings into luxury apartments. So there is little likelihood of Miller Homes making anything like the figures which have been bandied around in this debate.

Mr. Maxton: On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McQuarrie: No, I will not.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. McQuarrie.

Mr. McQuarrie: I have given way often enough.
I now refer to the Treasury minute, of which Labour Members have made great play tonight. Paragraph 2 says:
The department accepts that, although Professor Halliday's report dealt solely with the disposal of National Health Service property, its recommendations should in principle apply to the disposal of other Crown property".
It says that they "should in principle apply", not that they must apply.

Mr. George Robertson: Look at the last sentence in paragraph 5.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Member should hold his horses; I will come to paragraph 5.
Nowhere does this paragraph say that those recommendations "must" apply in such cases.

Mr. Robertson: Yes, it does.

Mr. McQuarrie: Nowhere is that said in paragraph 2.
Then we come to paragraph 3. This is another paragraph that Labour Members have failed to bring to the attention of the House. It says:


The department notes the Committee's view that it failed to ensure that everything possible was done to market the property adequately but does not accept that its approach was casual or that its efforts to explore the possibility of alternative use or development were inadequate.
Labour Members have not mentioned that. They are trying to blow up the importance of paragraph 2.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) says that I should read the last sentence in paragraph 5. That sentence states:
This guidance will ensure that the recommendations of the Halliday report are appropriately applied.
One must accept, from the report's wording, that the action is to be taken only when appropriate. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. I fail to understand why an hon. Member with the ability of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) should laugh. The power to sell Hamilton college rested with the Jordanhill governors who were not obligated to implement the Halliday report.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way again. It is clear that in no case has there been a valid criticism of the Under-Secretary of State.
The report discusses whether the property should have gone to commercial estate agents. I believe that in this instance it would have been wiser to have done that, and to have advertised on Friday rather than Monday, as was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Cathcart when questioning the witnesses. It would have been wiser to have advertised in the The Sunday Times ass well as the The Times. It would have been wiser also—I do not know why solicitors could not accept this point—to advertise in the Estates Gazette because that is where commercial property is advertised. The report contains valid criticisms, but I do not accept that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was in any way responsible for the decisions taken. If one reads the evidence thoroughly, one can see that the blame for the whole sorry business lies at the feet of the officials, not the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I often tell people that I value political loyalty, but in the past couple of hours we have seen an extraordinary display of gut loyalty from Conservative Members. At times the loyalty has been so advanced that it has led Conservative Members into extraordinary intellectual positions. On many occasions they were bereft of argument and therefore tried to shrug off and laugh off the Hamilton college sale. This is a serious matter, and important points are raised in the Committee's report. I did not enjoy the spectacle of the laughter and hooting during the debate. I make an exception of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), who made a short and thoughtful contribution to the debate, although I did not agree with everything he said.
We should not pretend that nothing went wrong in the sale of Hamilton college, and only a small group of Conservative Back Benchers attempted to do so. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), who with some justice, has been critical of the attendance of hon. Members during the

debate, has departed from the Chamber. She may be intending to return, but she will have to read in Hansard my critical remarks of her speech.
It was extraordinary that the hon. Lady argued that in some way the villain of the piece was the chief valuer for Scotland. It is true that, as the hon. Lady said, the Halliday report had some criticisms of his position and the way, that he was integrated into the system, but the hon. Lady should take the trouble to read what Halliday said in recommending how to overcome the difficulties. We understand that those recommendations were implemented. The hon. Lady's point is only of historic and academic interest, and should not apply to the position of the chief valuer.
Even more extraordinary was the contention of the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—who seems to have wandered off into the night—in attempting to defend the fact that the Halliday recommendations were ignored by the Scottish Office over the sale of Hamilton college. The Scottish Office seemed to be perfectly happy with the advice offered by the chief valuer and the solicitor's office, but it was jettisoned in a remarkable way by the Minister and his immediate advisers.
That may not worry the hon. Members for Dumfries and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, but, to be fair, it worried the PAC, which was numerically dominated by Conservative Members, and it also worried the Government. That is why we have the Treasury minute which makes it clear that it recognises that the recommendations of the Halliday committee, which were ignored in the sale of Hamilton college, should not be ignored in future.
While I admire the ingenuity, and the kind of barrack room lawyer's skill of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), any reasonable interpretation of paragraph 5 of the Treasury minute suggests that the Government accept that the guidance they issue
will ensure that the recommendations of the Halliday report are appropriately applied.
If the Minister is going to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan is right, that he does not mean that the Halliday report recommendations will be applied in future, that he accepts that in the case of the Hamilton college the Ministers were correct to ignore its recommendations and that what occurred can happen again, he should make that clear when he replies to the debate. However, I do not believe that he will take that line.
I assume, and the Minister must tell me if I am wrong, that we are correct in our interpretation of paragraph 5 of the Treasury minute and that the Halliday report recommendations will be observed in future and that we will not have the kind of charade that seemed to take place during the negotiations for the sale of the college of education at Hamilton.
It is clear, and I want to be fair to the Government, that they accept, although it has not been accepted by any Conservative Back Benchers, that something went wrong and that there is a need to change the rules. If we get into this position in future, there will be a different result and the market will almost certainly have been tested again, as the chief valuer recommended in his second letter and second advice to the Scottish Office. I shall return to some of these points later.
I regard this as a sad and sorry tale. There was a good deal of muddle, a great deal of thoughtlessness, a certain amount of panic, and pressure and embarrassment about the matter when the sale was taking place, and there was a level of incompetence as well.
I should he saying that some Opposition Members and some people outside the House who have been reading and following the case think that in talking about muddle and incompetence I am being charitable. I accept that there are half a hundred ways of presenting the facts. One can talk about a bewildering range of infamy, speculative theories, and proper and improper motives. I am not interested in that. I should prefer to study the record, the PAC findings, and the evidence submitted by the Scottish Office and to try and make some deductions. I believe that if one approaches the matter in a reasonably clear minded way, and is not blinded by a loyal wish to do one's best for a colleague, the deductions that one will draw from the fact are devastating enough by any normal standards.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde produced the information as some kind of coup, but I had a connection with one of the parties to this matter. The Minister will confirm that I mentioned it to him this evening and rather jokingly said that I had to declare, if not an interest, at least a connection, because about 20 years ago I was an apprentice with the firm of solicitors that acted in the sale of Hamilton college. I do not believe that I have had any connection with them since, but my memories are perfectly amiable. I have no complaint about the way in which I was treated, although it may well have complaints about the way it was treated by its apprentice.
Having got that off my chest, I express my thanks to the PAC for what I believe is the careful work and fair and balanced submission of the argument and the evidence that it produced. I make no complaint about the fact that they are not here, but I believe that those members of the Tory majority on the Committee would not have been grateful for or impressed by the somewhat cavalier way in which their work was treated by their colleagues in Scottish Conservative group. Of course, on occasions in Parliament we deal in coded messages. There is no doubt that, in the context of the normal expressions of a PAC report, this is a strong criticism of the way in which the Hamilton college sale was conducted.
There is much common ground, although it has been hidden in the debate. Many basic facts are not in contention and will be agreed by all parties. There was a transfer of the property to the governors of Jordanhill college. There was a direction by the Secretary of State to sell. All that took place against the background of a considerable public scandal and disquiet over the sale of certain land at Robroyston in 1977, which led to the appointment of the Halliday committee. As a result, specific guidelines were introduced by the Scottish Office to try to ensure that such a situation would not arise again.
I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that it is a matter of fundamental importance that it is not right to say that because Halliday was dealing with hospital property, Robroyston hospital, in some way there was no need to regard his recommendations as more than persuasive in terms of the transaction that we are discussing. We know for a fact that the PAC did not take that view. If the House likes—I am sure that it will be prepared to do so — to look at paragraph 19 of the report, it will see that specifically it came to the conclusion that it was not possible to shelter behind the argument that

the Halliday report did not cover this circumstance. It said that the Jordanhill governors were financed by the Scottish Education Department, were selling on a direction from the SED, and that a special joint committee had been set up with SED officials on it to control and monitor the situation because they were responsible for it. Ultimately, the sale had to be approved by the Minister. It is clear that ministerial responsibility runs here.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 5 — it is important in view of the prominence of the defence that has been given to the argument — he will see the following:
When disposing of a property on the open market, Scottish Office Departments are expected, under guidance issued by the Scottish Solicitor's office in 1981, to adopt procedures recommended by the Halliday committee in 1980".
In other words, as a matter of fact—the fact is culled from the Scottish Office — the Scottish Solicitor's Department made it clear in 1981 that the Halliday committee report would apply to such situations, and the Treasury minute does not attempt to maintain the argument that the Halliday committee report was not expected to apply to the sale of Hamilton college. Therefore, we can genuinely put that argument on one side.
Initially, that advice was followed. That is why, in October 1981, the chief valuer for Scotland was consulted. On 9 December we received his advice, with the famous estimate. I accept that it was heavily qualified by the fact that it was only in favourable circumstances that he thought a figure of £6 million could be realised. Perhaps more importantly, from my point of view, he went on to make some firm recommendations about the use of a commercial selling agent, an estate agent, which he thought, in a quaint phrase in the report, might be able to discover specialised pockets of potential purchasers.
There was a firm recommendation that that should be done. I am familiar with the custom that Scottish solicitors are more involved in the sale of property than their English counterparts, although that phenomenon is rapidly changing with the growth of estate agencies. In my view, however, there are not many solicitors with experience of disposing of property of that specialist nature. Even allowing for that, it is unfortunate that the Halliday report was not followed.
The PAC commented on this in paragraph 16 in what for that Committee are very strong terms indeed. Hon. Members will recall—I give anyone still here at this hour credit for having read the report — that it commented as follows:
We were astonished to learn that SED had approved the appointment of the Jordanhill College's own solicitors as selling agents … and … had then made no attempt either to change their decision or to discuss with the Chief Valuer their rejection of his advice.
That is one of the most extraordinary themes running through the report. The chief valuer, presumably a man of great skill and expertise, was twice asked for his advice and on both occasions his advice was entirely rejected without any attempt to discuss the reasons for that or the risks or dangers involved.
Events, of course, largely justified the chief valuer's doubts about the selling methods. I shall not rehearse at length the charges made in the PAC report, but I believe that the advertising was inadequate in terms of both timing and placement. Two advertisements appeared, one between 14 and 18 December, and the other between 11 and 15 January. Even a person whose conveyancing


experience is as sketchy as mine must recognise that that was a very narrow testing of the market at a time of the year when the market is peculiarly and seasonally sluggish. Placement was in The Scotsman, the Glasgow Herald, The Times, and the Times Educational Supplement. Even I—I say this without undue modesty — should have thought that some of the technical journals such as the Estates Gazette and Estates Times were obvious publications to advertise such a highly specialised property.
I concede, of course, that we shall never know what might have happened if a different policy had been followed. I certainly do not believe that the full £6 million would have been obtained in that depressed market. Nevertheless, as the Treasury minute itself concedes, the offers forthcoming were extremely disappointing. In view of that concession and the feeling in the Scottish Office itself, it is indeed surprising that no attempt was made to test the market again and put the situation right. I accept that there was also the consideration of the substantial upkeep costs for caretakers, heating, rates and so on and that a balance had to be struck. Nevertheless, given the price that was offered, the advice originally given by the chief valuer and the factors taken into consideration in his second round of advice, the decision taken by the Scottish Office was very strange indeed—and hindsight has done nothing to remove or weaken that feeling.

Mr. Henderson: I have already made clear my views on the fact that the proper procedures were ignored. Even when they are properly followed, however, there will always be a difficult matter of judgment between the certain costs of a delay in the sale and the uncertain benefits that might flow from it.

Mr. Dewar: I recognise that argument, which is fully set out in the evidence. Nevertherless, taking a global view, the balance was strongly in favour of readvertising. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when the chief valuer was brought in again in August 1982 he said that he thought the price was too low. He knew about the depressed state of the market, but said that he thought it had not been properly tested.
Coming from a man of such skill, I should have thought that that would be a persuasive—nay, compulsive—argument to reconsider the postition. He referred also to matters such as the likely value of the unbuilt acresa of land outwith the loop of the Hamilton racecourse and made it clear that, despite the factors to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention, an attempt should have been made to test the market again and to obtain a better price.
Instead, the £680,000—£270,00 plus £410,000 from the two companies offering — was accepted, further reduced by £106,000 as a resutl of the surprising provision that the SED should remain responsible for the upkeep costs of the building from November 1982 until December 1983. The final take was thus brought down to £574,000.
I do not seek to overstate the case, but I find it difficult to see what possible defence there can be for the failure to safeguard public assets and the public interest as I see it when the chief valuer had given such firm and definitive advice. If the Department had said that it would not follow the suggestions of the chief valuer and there had then been a rush of business and a good offer, the Department would have been entitled to say, "We told you so, mate. It is just

as well that we did not take your stuffy, institutional advice. We went our way, and see what has happened." However, having ignored the chief valuer's advice, the Department ended up with an offer that was extremely disappointing, on its own terms. It must have known that it would be open to sustained public criticism, and it was faced with definitive advice from the chief valuer. In that situation, it was foolhardy and, I believe, irresponsible of the Department to press on and accept a clearly unsatisfactory offer.
We now have the Treasury minute. I welcome that fact, because we wanted to know the Government's view. The minute is not much more than a poor plea in mitigation, and is written in coded language. I have formed the impression that, in most of its comments, the Treasury is careful to make it clear that the view that it is expressing is that of the Department — presumably the Scottish Education Department — rather than its own. My impression is that the Treasury is distinctly uncomfortable and uneasy, and so it should be.
The first line of defence is that Halliday was not really relevant. That does not hold water. The second attack, which I do not think is dealt with, was on the total failure of the Department to accept the advice of the chief valuer and of the Scottish Office solicitor. One of the most eloquent passages in the evidence is at question 330. The reply by Mr. Gilchrist was admirably brief. He was asked:
Were you not surprised that the Scottish Education Department did not take your advice
and he replied, "Yes."
Everyone else has been surprised, too, and in the circumstances that surprise is well justified.
The main charge is that there was an insulting disregard for all the expertise available within the Minister's Department. I do not know exactly what is meant by the following formulation of words:
the Department accepts that it should have attempted to reconcile the views of the Governing Body and the advice of the Chief Valuer.
The Department should have taken the chief valuer's advice in August 1982, when it was clear that its policy had brought thoroughly bad results for the public purse and the reputation of the Scottish Office.
It is maintained in the minute that the Department
notes the Committee's view that it failed to ensure that everything possible was done to market the property adequately but does not accept that its approach was casual or that its efforts to explore the possibility of alternative use or development were inadequate.
I believe that that charge sticks. The advertising was a joke. The Department spend about £3,000 on it. It spent about £12,000 in total on the sale, not including the legal fees, which were, of course, the scale fees of the Law Society. The sum was not large, and most of that £12,000 was presumably spent on the brochure. The circulation of the brochure was not wide, because the advertising was inadequate. There was no warning of the low price that might well have succeeded in attracting potential public sector purchasers. The Treasury was not even told about the chief valuer's advice, and we are casually informed that that was inadvertence. The whole thing seems to have been a muddle, and it is easy to understand why those who have studied the situation draw, on occasion, more sinister conclusions than I have done. On the face of it, an asset that was expected to raise considerably more than the offers that were made was sold for a knock-down price after a very inadequate marketing effort.
The building firm Miller's must be pleased with what it got, and it looks as though it will do extremely well out of the transaction. There was total disregard for the rules, despite carefully considered guidelines laid down by Professor Halliday and his colleagues. The hon. Member for Dumfries said that the Minister took the best advice available to him. The exact opposite is the case. He deliberately ignored and flouted it. That is why we are complaining so bitterly. We are entitled to ask why it happened. There have been many suggestions—there always are when people who are normally reasonably rational, at least when defending their own interests, take an inexplicable course of action.
Circumstances in this case justify ingenious explanations. I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said. Some of the explanation lies in the circumstances in which the sale took place. There is no doubt that the embarrassment that surrounded the closure and sale of Hamilton college was something that Ministers would have liked to end. There might well have been a temptation just to get it off the front page by concluding a quick sale and closing the issue.
If that was the motivation it cost the public purse a bit, but it was a reasonable bargain in terms of political advantage. That can never be justified. If that is not the explanation, I find it difficult to envisage as other than amazing incompetence the fact that the Minister should have ignored all the advice and acted in an enormously arbitrary way. That would have shown a basic lack of control over his Department that I find extraordinary.
I do not believe the suggestion advanced by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, which was the most wounding of the attacks made on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) now the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He said that the Minister was a dupe, that he was misled by his civil servants. I do not believe that for one moment. I do not believe that the civil servants would have wanted to mislead the Minister, and I can think of no motive for their withholding information from him. I believe that the Minister was in control of his Department and knew what he was doing. That is one of the reasons why we believe that he and his credibility are at risk as a result of this business.
There is a clear admission in the Treasury minute that something went wrong. It accepts that lessons have to be learnt. It talks about revised guidance that is to be issued shortly and ensuring that the recommendations of the Halliday report are appropriately applied. There is a concession, albeit coded and muted in the reassuring anti-climatic prosaic prose of Departmental minutes, but there is an admission that something went horribly wrong. I believe that the Minister must be responsible for that.
Of course the Government now hope, having made that admission, that nothing else need to be done and that the whole think will quietly go away and be forgotten. However, I do not believe that the minute is enough. I am glad that lessons have been learnt and that the Government will not be allowed to act irresponsibly as happened with Hamilton college. Ministers carry ultimate responsibility. I believe that the Minister concerned knew what was happening. It was not a minor anonymous transaction that was unknown and unobserved and lying at the edges of ministerial knowledge.
There had been a policy decision, a nominal implementation of the Halliday report, and even the appointment of a committee with civil servant representatives to ensure that there were no slip-ups. There was a great deal of political attention on Hamilton college and a great deal of political pressure. In those circumstances, it is almost inconceivable that the Minister concerned was not fully aware of what was going on. He must have been a party to the decision to conclude the sale, despite the overwhelming pressure and advice from his own experts, especially from the chief valuer of his own solicitors department.
We must not allow the Government to cut and run from this issue on the basis of this flimsy note from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, which arrived yesterday afternoon. What has happened in this sad affair is that the credibility of a Minister, of the Government generally, and of the Scottish Office especially, has been affected, and the competence of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central has been called into question. He must have seen those reports, and he must have taken the decision. if he is rightly reported as saying that the criticisms of his conduct are stupid and ignorant, he is impliedly attacking not only his and my colleagues on the PAC, but the Government, on a fair reading of the Treasury minute.
If there is stupidity and ignorance — I am sorry to have to say this—it is on the part of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. He does no credit to himself when he blusters and strikes out in that way, when a genuine administrative problem has been shown up in sharp detail and for which he was clearly responsible. On the balance of the evidence, and on the clearly arbitrary, unsatisfactory and unwise way in which he acted, he should look carefully at his position.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on at least one point: that this is a serious matter. When my hon. Friends greeted some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) with some hilarity, it was because of the wild and colourful language that he used—terms such as "national scandals" and so on, when 38 Scottish Labour Members have not bothered to attend the debate.
We heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) — even the hon. Member for Garscadden conceded that—and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). The speeches of Opposition Members improved as they went along. After the rather colourful and unjustified generalisations of the hon. Member for Hamilton, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) made some disgraceful allegations, to which I shall return. The House had to wait until the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) to near an Opposition Member concentrate on the specific points in the PAC report. I hasten to add that I did not agree with all of his remarks.
The PAC report criticises my Department, and it is only reasonable that hon. Members should seek to debate the matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart that the debate need not be limited to the PAC report, and it is reasonable for hon. Members to try to establish to what extent the criticisms are justified. We published the


Treasury minute today, which has, in the main, been welcomed by hon. Members. To clear up any misunderstanding about it, I assure the House that responses to PAC reports are always in the form of Treasury minutes, which represent the collective view of the Government.
The Treasury minute accepts that, especially in matters of procedure, some things could have been done better. That includes further discussion with the Chief Valuer of his recommendations at two stages. It shows that action is being taken in the Scottish Office to ensure that procedures in the disposal of property will in future be such as to take appropriate account of the recommendations of the Halliday report.
That said, I must also point out, as my hon. Friends have done, that in this debate and in much of the publicity outside the House, deductions have been made, allegedly from the report, that are not supported by the evidence to or the findings of the PAC. There is the repeated allegation that Hamilton college of education was sold at a throwaway price. That is not a formal complaint about the PAC report, but it has figured in the debate tonight and I shall answer it first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who spoke first, apologised to me for the fact that he would have to leave before the end of the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, for Fife, North-East and for Banff and Buchan all pointed out that no one has dissented from the argument that the true value of property is the price that can be obtained for it on the open market. The PAC report, in paragraph 25, stated:
There can, of course, be no certainty what price would have been obtained for Hamilton College if SED had sought to have its sale handled in accordance with the Chief Valuer's and Solicitor's Office advice.
When the Chief Valuer put a price of £6 million on the property, he stressed that it represented only the possible outcome, based on conditions most favourable to the seller, and recognised the possibility that the estimated value might not be realised. He conceded in correspondence that the situation apparently was not most favourable to the seller, but did not offer a revised valuation of the property.
After property had been offered for sale on the open market, the best offers that were received were the two offers adding up to £680,000, which were eventually accepted. It is true that there were two offers that in purely financial terms were higher, but both were hedged about with conditions that raised the serious risk that no sale would ever have taken place, and for that reason they were found unacceptable. The PAC report does not suggest that the decision not to accept those offers was mistaken.

Mr. Maxton: If the Minister had a house valued at £60,000, and for reasons connected with his job he had to move away so that it was standing empty, and he put it on the market knowing that he valued it at that price, but one person offered him £7,000 and another £6,000, would he accept either of those offers without going back to the market place to see whether he could get a better offer? If he could not then get a better offer, would he accept the £6,000 rather than the £7,000?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman's second point is absurd, and the hon. Member for Garscadden would

concede that. As to the first point, one would make a judgment on the offers that one received. I shall come to the judgment that was made.
It must be emphasised that the Chief Valuer's original estimate of £6 million was based essentially on the assumption that the most likely purchaser for the teaching block would be Strathclyde regional council but that, because of the special nature of the accomodation, it might be necessary to accept substantially less for the teaching block if Strathclyde was not prepared to pay as much as £3 million. In the event, it elected to make no offer for any part of the property—not, I understand, because of the political factors suggested by the hon. Member for Cathcart, but because of the high running costs.
I come now to an allegation made in the debate that must be forcefully rejected—the allegation by the hon. Member for Cathcart and referred to by the hon. Member for Garscadden that the sale of the Hamilton premises was rushed through with the object of getting rid of the property as quickly as possible without due regard to the price obtained.
My right hon. Friend's decision to close Hamilton was announced in August 1980 and the college legally ceased to exist as a separate college in September 1981. The public advertisement of the Hamilton property as available for disposal was issued in December 1981 and January 1982. The following six months were devoted to establishing the extent of interest in the property, and firm offers were invited in June 1982 from those who appeared to be most interested—[Interruption.] I am making an important point because a disgraceful allegation has been made.
Following the closing date for offers at the end of July, there was a further period during which offers were considered. Authorisation to accept two of the offers was issued at the beginning of October, and missives were exchanged in November. No reasonable person looking at that timetable could possibly suggest that whole thing was rushed.

Mr. George Robertson: rose——

Mr. Stewart: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am anxious to have my answer to the debate on the record.

Mr. Robertson: We are anxious to hear the Minister's reply, so I shall not delay him for long. The hon. Gentleman said that the whole thing was not rushed. The PAC documents all the advice that was given to Ministers about the need to readvertise and to examine, through the district valuer, the extra potential of the land given different planning permission. A decision was taken not to go ahead with that advice. The evidence is that, despite the timetable, the decision was still rushed so as to give the properties to those who had made low offers.

Mr. Stewart: No, the decision was not rushed. I shall come shortly to the point the hon. Gentleman makes about why the offers were accepted, despite the fact that they were disappointingly low.
As for the criticism that the SED did not follow the advice that estate agents should be appointed to handle the disposal of the premises, we have accepted that my Department should have attempted to reconcile the views of the governing body of Jordanhill college of education and the advice of the chief valuer that estate agents should


be appointed before finally approving the appointment of the selling agents for Hamilton. However, the question was not so much a matter of black and white as has been suggested tonight. It is not clear that the definition of "selling agents" in the Halliday report necessarily excludes firms of solicitors experienced in large property transactions. It has been pointed out that solicitors in Scotland continue to have a major role in property transactions. Indeed, my Department received strong assurances that Jordanhill solicitors possessed such experience.
The governing body of the college—the owners of Hamilton college at that stage—was disposed to use its own solicitors. While my Department naturally had to examine the proposal critically on its merits, it is fair to make the point that we have long experience of dealing with the Jordanhill governing body on matters for which it assumes substantial responsibility and have every reason to put the highest value on its judgment. There is every reason to suppose that, in such an obviously important matter, it would have reached a decision only after careful consideration of the consequences.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I must get on.
At the point at which the Jordanhill proposal was approved, we had other advice. The solicitor's office had advised us that an estate agent might know of specialised pockets of potential purchasers who would be interested in such a property. We were advised to consult the estates officers of the Scottish Development Department. The advice from that office at that time suggested that the use of an estate agent would not necessarily bring to such a transaction experience that would not be available to Jordanhill solicitors. Nevertheless, we accept, as I said, that there should have been an attempt to reconcile the views of the governing body and of the chief valuer, and it is regrettable that that was not done.
I come to the measures that were taken in marketing the Jordanhill college premises—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East. It is fair to point out why the PAC did not take evidence from bodies such as solicitors. I believe that it was regrettable that the PAC subsequently criticised not just the SED but the solicitors directly without having taken evidence from them. They advertised the property for sale in a usual way. Forty-nine copies of the brochure were issued to inquirers and leading estate agents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) intervened to make an important comment about the role of estate agents. The Public Accounts Committee, in paragraph 15 of its report, states that
potential buyers were not falling over each other to bid for this specialised property.
Paragraph 25 states:
There can … be no certainty what price would have been obtained".
It was felt that the price would have been uncertain had a different procedure been followed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde said, in the spring of 1982 about 15 purchasers were showing serious interest in the premises. It would be unfair if the impression were left that the admittedly disappointing price ultimately paid for the Hamilton premises was the result of shortcomings on the part of the selling agents.
The hon. Member for Cathcart mentioned NALGO's interest. The first that anyone connected with the sale heard of an alleged NALGO interest was when the hon. Gentleman was asked a question during his evidence on 16 November 1983. I must emphasise that no upset price was fixed on the property.

Mr. Maxton: Why not?

Mr. Stewart: The chief valuer recommended against divulging his own estimate to any potential purchaser. It was thought better by him and everyone else to leave the price to be settled through the market.
The hon. Member for Hamilton asked why the Miller offer was accepted with the planning conditions which applied to it when there were higher offers. The PAC did not dispute that issue. The conditions were not comparable. The Miller conditions, after discussion with the planning and building authority, appeared capable of being, and were, met. The higher offers were subject to conditions which appeared to run a serious risk of not being met.
I move on to the decision to accept the offers by Miller and Christian schools north-west, which is a central area of criticism in the minds of Labour Members. All the offers for the property were regarded as low.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend emphasise that the PAC never criticised the Department for not taking the higher offers in view of the difficult conditions surrounding them?

Mr. Stewart: That is correct. My hon. Friend is right.
The offers for the property were all regarded as low. The option of rejecting all the offers and seeking to market the property anew had to be seriously considered. An investment appraisal was carried out, which sought to appraise all the options, including that of readvertising. The general effect of this, allowing for maintenance costs during the time likely to be needed to complete the various sales, was that the two lowest offers taken together fell not far short of the next highest offer for the entire property, and significantly short, in purely money terms, of the highest offer.
There were conditions attached to the two highest offers which, in our view, raised an unacceptable risk that no sale would take place. If the property had been readvertised, it would have been necessary to obtain by the likely completion date a price amounting to more than double that which was obtained. It seemed unlikely that a new prospective buyer willing to pay such a price would come forward in the near future. There is no evidence to suggest that that was anything other than a sensible conclusion. Substantial account was also taken of the fact that so long as the property remained empty, maintenance and security costs estimated at £325,000 a year would be incurred, with the possibility that, as time passed, there might be a need for greater expenditure on repairs. Therefore, on balance, the view was taken that the property should be sold for £680,000.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of having made the sale is that the local authority is now getting rates for the school?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. The local authority gains that benefit.
I want to emphasise the point about the investment appraisal. Opposition Members suggested that, at that


point, the Government took a rushed decision not to consider the option of going back into the market from scratch. That is not true. The option was considered very carefully. A full investment appraisal was undertaken, and on the basis of that appraisal the Government decided that it would be sensible to accept the recommendation of the Jordanhill college board of governors that the acceptable offers that had been put in should be accepted.

Mr. Maxton: rose——

Mr. Stewart: Time is pressing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief.

Mr. Maxton: I shall be brief. Will the Minister tell us why, if the matter was given this careful thought and having asked the advice of the chief valuer, the board of governors and the SED did not wait until that advice had been received before taking the decision?

Mr. Stewart: At that point the advice of the Chief Valuer had been received. The hon. Gentleman is confusing two different matters. It was on the basis, in particular, of the investment appraisal that the decision was taken.
The Chief Valuer thought that all or part of the property might fetch a higher price at a later date, but he had not suggested what that price might be or how long it might take to market the property. On the basis of the careful consideration that was given, not only by the SED but by the Jordanhill college board of governors, that was a reasonable and justifiable decision to take. If the Government had decided to keep the property empty, without any guarantee of a preferable customer in the future, there would have been considerable criticism of that in the House tonight.

Mr. Dewar: Before the Minister sits down, will he say a word about the meaning of the last sentence of paragraph 5, which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) said meant nothing?

Mr. Stewart: That sentence is self-explanatory. The guidance will ensure that the recommendations of the Halliday report are appropriately applied. That is clear.
I want to answer one issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, who is not present, about Mr. Pate's role. It is clear from the evidence taken by the PAC that Mr. Pate behaved with complete propriety. When the

question of appointing his firm to act for Jordanhill in the sale of Hamilton came up, he declared his interest and played no part in discussions on the matter, either on the Jordanhill governing body or within his firm. I see that the hon. Member for Garscadden confirms that the Opposition formally accept that position.
The key point is whether or not the market was tested. I have put evidence that it was before the House, and that is the point that my hon. Friends have consistently put forward. The £20 million figure is a complete red herring. The £6 million figure applied in ideal circumstances, and ideal circumstances did not apply.
It is understandable that the hon. Member for Hamilton, and the hon. Member for Cathcart, who was employed at Hamilton college of education, should have strong feelings about the closure of the college. Those feelings were made clear at the beginning of the debate when I was kindly reminded of some previous speeches that I had made. The hon. Member for Hamilton has sought every opportunity to challenge the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He is entitled to support the criticisms made in the PAC report of some of the detailed procedures which were followed by the SED in the arrangements for the sale of the property. As indicated in the Treasury minute published today in response to that report, we entirely accept that the Department made some errors in procedure and that revised guidance should be issued on the sales of public property.
However, the hon. Gentleman spoilt his case tonight by overstatment, exaggeration and unworthy speculation about ministerial motives. Criticisms have not been confined to the Department's errors in procedure. There have been quite unsupported accusations against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), now Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We are convinced that the decision to advertise the property for sale was correct and that strenuous efforts were made by the selling agents to market the property and to find out what change in use would be acceptable to the planning authority. I have not talked about that point because it was not raised in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was fully justified in his decision to accept the offers made. The buildings are now in productive use as a private school and will provide much needed flats in Hamilton for those who wish to buy them. That is an acceptable outcome, and it ought to be an acceptable outcome to the House.

Orders of the Day — Royal Irish Rangers

Rev. Martin Smyth: We have just had what I might call a post mortem which was introduced by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). It was animated at times, but some might think that it was unsatisfactory. Turning from the disposal of one piece of property, I want to draw the attention of the House to the possible change of use of another property. I trust that when the Minister replies to the debate his prognosis will be a little more hopeful, in particular in connection with the subject of the training depot of the Royal Irish Rangers, currently situated at St. Patrick's barracks in Ballymena.
I understand that the future of that depot is under threat as a result of General Groom's report on how savings are to be made in the training schemes of the Army. We thought last year, when there was a suspicion that things might be moving, that we had understandings that the future of the depot would be secure, but it appears that that decision has not yet been taken. I understand that General Groom concluded that all regular infantry training should be contained in three or four places—one in Scotland, one for the King's division in Yorkshire, and one elsewhere. Therefore, the adult recruits of the Royal Irish Rangers should be trained in Yorkshire while the juniors might be trained at one of the three places in England, Pirbright being a possible site. I speak with some feeling on the matter, not only because in another sphere did I succeed a gallant colonel, the late R. H. Wallace of South Down milita fame, but my father on his death was president of the 10th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles Old Comrades' Association. Other family members have served, and suffered, in the forces, and I had the privilege of serving as a member of the Royal Ulster Rifles army cadet force.
While it may be argued that there will be financial savings in such moves, I believe that they would never compensate for the incalcuable loss of regimental loyalty and tradition. If the House considered in an earlier debate that property was sold at too low a price, I have a suspicion that to change the use of the training depot in Ballymena from the regimental headquarters and training depot for the Royal Irish Rangers would be too high a price to pay.
As the recruits are removed from St. Patrick's, for example, the regimental presence would be undermined, destroying the very concept of a regimental headquarters, and its infrastructure. Because of the decision of successive Governments, in my opinion unwisely taken, the two regular battalions no longer serve in Northern Ireland, and I believe are presently stationed at Dover and Chester. There is every prospect, therefore, if the training of the recruits and the juniors is moved, of the regiment becoming Irish in name only, just as the dragoons and the hussars were subsumed in the cavalry. To allow the groom to lead us that way would be to miss the track, and to stable the horse in the wrong place.
The regiment comprises not only the two regular battalions but also two territorial army battalions in Portadown and Armagh, with units in some nine other locations. There are 37 detachments of the cadet force, and two combined cadet units. They have a chapel in Belfast cathedral, and three museums. In addition—something that is sometimes overlooked—they discharge responsibilities for the old Irish regiments, such regiments as the

18th regiment from Clonmel, a responsibility that has been placed upon the army since 1921. To claim that there would still be a regimental presence with a regimental headquarters would be to trade in mythology. A regimental headquarters in such circumstances would probably involve a retired officer with some clerical assistance.
To lose regimental traditions, morale and esprit de corps would be something that finance could not recoup. Let us look at the financial side, since it is suggested that, by moving the Rangers elsewhere, savings will be made. If it were questionable in the previous debate what value might have accrued by other methods of disposal, I believe that it is debatable that finance will be saved by moving the training depot from Ballymena. I believe that the exact figures are unknown. However, it is suggested that it will take several million pounds to build suitable accommodation at Strensall in Yorkshire.
At the same time it is intended to keep Ballymena as a TA training establishment with the Royal Irish Rangers headquarters. Therefore, it appears that the overheads will remain the same and training staff to some extent will have to be kept there if we are to have an efficient service for the TA. Currently, however, about 300 recruits and 400 juniors are trained in Ballymena each year. Therefore, the object should be to make the training of adults and juniors more cost-effective. A move to Yorkshire would merely be an exercise in academic or accounting dogma.
There is an option to be considered. I believe that the Rangers would welcome the use of the depot as a training centre for all arms. Sending 45 men on a series of courses could cover 1,000 people a year. That could be superimposed on what already exists there for the Royal Irish Rangers. While some specialist units might still prefer their TA groups to be trained in traditional centres, basic training could be given at St. Patrick's and the travel costs and extra expenses incurred in sending them to main depots could be saved. That is one way of making legitimate savings.
It is also important to remember that 80 per cent. of the Rangers are Ulster-born. The remainder are from England, from what are known, for example, as the Lancashire Irish, with a trickle from the Republic of Ireland. To take those 80 per cent. straight from Ulster could accelerate the outflow of young men from the Province which w e see in the academic world. They would be isolated, and that would make it more difficult for them to return to their families during training. The result might even be to impair the rate of recruiting, as parents discouraged their children from such a course.
I turn to the political considerations, which we all recognise. If the depot is to be removed, the link will be broken between the homeland of the last remaining infantry regiment of the line associated with Ireland. The focus of attention would then move from our own regiment, with its headquarters and training depot in Ballymena, to the intinerants in Lisburn, with all the attendant pressures for the withdrawal of the British Army. The move of the Rangers from Ballymena would be seen as the beginning of a series of withdrawals. It could, and I believe would, be paralleled by the signal given to the Argentine junta by the withdrawal of HMS Endeavour from the Falklands. They concluded that the British were on the way out. Perhaps that is the signal which some wish to give to the Government of the Irish Republic; I hope that it is not the signal which anyone wants to send to the IRA.
Not only would keeping the Rangers in Ballymena save money. More fundamentally, it would keep the fighting traditions of an important unit of the British Army within its own habitat. Scotland still has its regimental headquarters and traditions. England undoubtedly has its fine traditions and regiments. Even Wales has its headquarters in Lichfield, only an hour's drive away. But to remove this depot from Ballymena is to remove any regimental tradition from the Province.
The depot would not be just an hour's drive away. It would lie across the most costly stretch of water in the world—hours away, even from the port in Scotland or England, with all the resulting inconvenience for recruits. Most important, it strikes a blow at traditions of which we are justly proud.
I am reminded of an old song which, so far as I remember, goes like this:
You may talk about your King's Guards, Scots Greys and all;
You may talk about your Kilties and your gallant Forty-twa;
But of all the regiments under the King's command,
The South Down Militia is the terror of them all.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This matter is of the greatest concern to the Province of Ulster and the people of Ballymena. Representing Ballymena in the House, I want to put on record a resolution passed by the Ballymena borough council on 5 March:
That this council is alarmed at reports that the Training element of the Royal Irish Rangers, will be moved to Strensall in Yorkshire.
Realising the serious implications of such a decision, Ballymena Borough Council calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take steps to stop such action.
We are tonight considering the future of St. Patrick's barracks in Ballymena as the headquarters and training depot of the Royal Irish Rangers. The regiment was formed in 1968 — I almost said, 1690 — from the regiments which previously constituted the North Irish Brigade — the Royal Inniskillin Fusiliers, the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Irish Fusiliers (Princess Victoria's). The history of those regiments goes back over 200 years. The fact that they are called "fusiliers" shows that, because the name came from an improved type of musket which was used only by special units and officers and was known by its French name "fusil". The escorts for the guns were the first troops to be armed with flintlock muskets, because sparks drifting from the match of the old matchlock muskets often caused the open powder barrels standing beside the guns to explode.
We are going back into history. A pope handed Ireland to England and instructed the English monarch to bring Ireland into subjection. Since those days, the British Army has recruited in Ireland. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, this is the last link of a regiment with Ireland. The present Clerk of the House of Commons had a distinguished career as a member of the Royal Ulster Rifles. This matter runs deeply into the past and present.
What do the Government intend to do about meeting deputations interested in this matter? Many people in Northern Ireland are anxious to put their views on this important topic.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South commented on the financial aspect. Better financial ceilings could be

achieved by keeping this training centre in the Province. The largest percentage of recruits come from the Province. Why should they not be trained there? The Government should comment on that important matter.
Political considerations cause great worry. The House has taken decisions on other institutions and establishments connected with the armed forces. A naval depot was shifted from the Randaldstown area, and that was the last such establishment in Northern Ireland. With those actions, the British connection and the link of the armed forces with Northern Ireland is being withdrawn. That is alarming, especially when there is strong political and terrorist pressure about these matters from the Irish Republic. We from Northern Ireland have a right to be greatly worried about how these matters are proceeding.
The connection between Ballymena and the Army has been long standing and good. The town has benefited from the training depot, and the depot has benefited from its connection with the town. I am anxious about the employment position, in the town, because about 200 jobs will be in jeopardy if this action proceeds. The Minister should bear in mind the Northern Ireland unemployment situation.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will tell us when the decision will be made, because 12 to 18 months ago we thought that the matter had been resolved, that the assurance given then could be relied upon, and that the training centre would continue.
It is unsatisfactory to say that the headquarters will remain in Ballymena, because that means only an office, a retired Army officer and perhaps a clerk to answer the telephone. That is not what we want for the St. Patrick's barracks. We want the full training facilities to continue. I press the Minister to tell us when he believes that the Government will make that important decision.
I should like to ask the Minister what on the spot inquiries and investigations have been made. Have all the relevant factors—I have put some to the Minister, many have been put in the debate and others will be put—been considered carefully? Does the Minister realise that the factors governing the decision about Ballymena are different from those that might be taken about a similar matter on the mainland? The position is different.
When the Government make their decision, they must take many serious considerations into account. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind, because if the training centre is to be closed it will be a symbolic break which will have many serious political repercussions. I trust that the Minister will realise how serious the matter is. When he reaches a decision, I hope that he will come down firmly on the side of keeping the link and sustaining the training centre, jobs and this important tie with Ulster.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: In rising to support my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), I have to say that I recall my maiden speech during the defence Estimates when I drew attention to the fact that almost every family in Northern Ireland has close links with the British Army, and especially with the Royal Irish Rangers.
Going back 300 years, one finds that each county, not just in Northern Ireland as it is today, but throughout Ireland, produced its regiments and soldiers. In 1921 when the 26 counties seceded from the Union it was left to Northern Ireland to maintain the link. That link went back


through the three regiments that have been named—the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Royal Irish Fusiliers and the Royal Ulster Rifles.
The Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers was initially the 27th Inniskilling Regiment, raised, we are told, on 20 June 1689, from three regiments of foot of the Enniskillen forces that defended the town of Enniskillen in my constituency for William III. The Royal Irish Fusiliers was initially raised as the 87th (Prince of Wales Irish) Regiment of foot on 18 September 1793. The regiment became known as the Faugh-a-Ballaghs from its battle cry of "Faugh-a-Ballagh" or, "Clear the way", which it used during the Peninsula war.
The Royal Ulster Rifles was raised as the 83rd (County of Dublin) Regiment of foot in 1793. It was later to become known as the Royal Irish Rifles and, after 1920, as the Royal Ulster Rifles.
Therefore, we have a great history, in Ireland before 1920, and in Northern Ireland since that time, of volunteering to serve the Crown. It is a link that I should not like to see broken. It is not just in Northern Ireland that we have to worry and concern ourselves with the Groom examination of army training, but throughout the entire British Army, because it is the regimental system that has made the British Army different from any other army throughout the world. There is an affinity between members of a British regiment that makes them not braver than other armies, but braver for longer.
I understand that the argument is being put forward that adult Regular soldiers and junior soldiers should be trained on the mainland, and that the Territorial Army element in Northern Ireland would then be trained at Ballymena. If it is purely for administrative reasons, that does not appear to be a sensible proposal. Even if it were for financial reasons, one would consider it unwise. Because our Territorial Army element may have to be called into action at some time, these soldiers must be trained to a high standard. That would be extremely difficult if we removed the Regular element from the Province.
At present the Regular element is trained by the best officers, warrant officers and senior NCOs who are available in the regiment. If we remove them, we shall deny to the Territorial element the best training staff, who should be available. It seems far more reasonable and sensible to overlay Regular Army training at the Ballymena depot with the training of the Territorial element.
In addition, we must consider the effect on the Royal Irish Rangers if they were taken out of the Province. The Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards is now an Irish regiment in name only. I believe that the same would happen to the Royal Irish Rangers. The 80 per cent. Northern Irish proportion would slowly but surely dwindle.
Family life in Northern Ireland is close. Mothers seeing their 16-year-old sons going off to Ballymena as junior soldiers are less concerned than if they were breaking the link and going to a camp across the water. Parents would not be able to keep watch on their families in the same way if their boys went off to England. There would not be the opportunity to see them passing out after their training and to realise that the lads who went off as boys had become young men and that the Army was prepared to treat and look after them well. Once that recruitment is lost, the Northern Irish element will fall away and we shall have lost the Royal Irish Rangers as the last Irish regiment of

the line.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South referred to the political implications. Although I am especially concerned at the idea of losing a regiment, I, too, am concerned about the political implications. What will our enemies say if we lose the Royal Irish Rangers, our resident regiment? Every garrison battalion coming to Northern Ireland will then be labelled by our enemies as the army of occupation. I make it clear that the majority do not think in that way, but an insidious, evil, message goes out from members and supporters of the Irish Republican Army that every English soldier serving in Northern Ireland is part of an army of occupation. Today we can point to our regiment, made up by and large of men from Northern Ireland, which is part of the British Army. That is something that we would lose. The loss of the Royal Irish Rangers would be a great encouragement to
I also wonder what view our friends in NATO would take if they saw that for some strange and inexplicable reason Britain was not prepared to maintain a Northern Ireland regiment. The change would cause grave disquiet. In these difficult times, when the world faces the threat of Communism, our NATO allies need to be assured that NATO has a viable foothold in Ireland—on that part of the island that is prepared to stand up and be counted, and, if necessary, to engage in the fight to maintain the British democratic way of life. The other part of the island is not prepared to give any commitment to maintain the world's freedom. For that reason, too, I believe that we should endeavour to maintain our depot in Northern Ireland.
On 21 February I asked the Secretary of State for Defence about his plans for the future of the Royal Irish Rangers. In his written answer, he said:
I am well aware of the arguments both for and against any move of training from Ballymena, and these will be taken fully into account before decisions are made."—[Official Report, 21 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 502.]
I hope that we have impressed upon the Secretary of State, and the Minister who will reply, our great concern that matters of finance, which are not proven, should not override more important issues which concern Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I support the retention of both the regimental headquarters and recruit training depot for the Royal Irish Rangers in their present accommodation at St. Patrick's barracks. I urge the House and the Government not to encourage further slaughter of innocents and more violence in Northern Ireland by retreating further from Ulster. Sinn Fein and Republican terrorists will be spurred to greater depravity than ever by a decision to terminate recruit training at St. Patrick's barracks in Ballymena. They could even claim that the Brits were on the run. I am conscious of the fact that the Ministry of Defence is currently examining the Army's whole initial training organisation within the United Kingdom and that the training function for the Royal. Irish Rangers regimental headquarters and depot at Ballymena falls within the scope of the review.
I speak as a former vice-principal and careers master who has had close personal contacts with the Ballymena depot for many years. I have often been privileged to accompany a busload of pupils whose first contact with the Army has been a conducted tour of inspection of the facilities at Ballymena, including the excellent music


depot there. The opportunity to experience a day in the life of the recruit in the gymnasium, the lecture theatre, on the range or over the assualt course greatly helped those young people to decide whether to pursue a career in the armed services after leaving school. It was always a valuable educational visit.
I was recently privileged to visit the barracks with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). We were greatly impressed by the excellent facilities and the scope for training and instruction to be expanded. The decision to terminate training would deny the young people of Northern Ireland easy access to the Army, especially the Royal Irish Rangers. The regiment could become Irish in name only or perhaps disappear. Is that the desire or intention of the Government or the Ministry of Defence? Do they intend to withdraw from Northern Ireland, cut the links and ultimately erase from memory the record of distinguished service and achievements of former members of the regiment?
One of the great difficulties facing Northern Ireland is that of severing family ties. The family is still—long may it continue—an important aspect of life in Ulster. The existence of the regimental headquarters and training depot in Ballymena makes it much easier for young recruits to join the Army. They are able to go home at weekends. Home for most recruits is little more than one and a half hours' journey away. Parental contact with the staff in the depot is excellent and parents are supportive of young recruits during training. Closure of the barracks and the transfer of training to the mainland would remove the valuable contracts that the Rangers have with four combined cadet force units and 39 Army cadet force units.
It is sometimes overlooked that the existence of St. Patrick's barracks in Ballymena helps to resettle soldiers into the Province after many years' service abroad. Ballymena town would be adversely affected if a decision to close were taken. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the good relationship between citizens there and people at the depot. I understand that, acknowledging those good relations, the freedom of the borough of Ballymena was granted to and accepted by the regiment. The local economy is dependent on the jobs created in the depot for civilian contractors and on the spending power of staff and recruits. It has been estimated that about one third of the trade in smaller shops is generated by the depot.
I urge hon. Members to support the maintenance of the Royal Irish Rangers depot and regimental headquarters at Ballymena, and the provision for Territorial Army training there in addition to the regular recruit training provided at present. The people of Northern Ireland would view the closure of the training function as evidence of success for the advocates of the "Brits out" campaign—that small minority of evil troublemakers for us all, who would react with further murders and bombings, thus creating unnecessary suffering. They would consider withdrawal as a massive step towards ultimate British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. All loyal citizens and British subjects in Northern Ireland irrespective of their religious beliefs, call upon the Government and the Ministry of Defence to demonstrate their commitment to the law-abiding and often silent majority of citizens by maintaining not only the regimental headquarters, but the recruit training facilities.
I can think of no more appropriate way in which to conclude my remarks than by using the motto of the Royal Ulster Rifles, part of the Rangers, "Quis separa bit?" which means, "Who shall separate us?" I trust that the House will answer clearly: we shall not cause separation; we shall support the retention of the Royal Irish Rangers, the depot and the regimental headquarters in Ballymena.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I support hon. Members in their desire to retain the Royal Irish Rangers depot in Ballymena. It is almost unbelievable, if not impossible, that, having combined three famous and gallant regiments—the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Royal Irish Fusiliers and the Royal Ulster Rifles—into the Royal Irish Rangers, anyone should now contemplate closing the Ballymena training depot. One must live in the Antrim area, or in Northern Ireland as a whole, to realise the pride felt by the people in the Royal Irish Rangers and the fact that the depot is there in Northern Ireland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) said, I recently had the pleasure and honour to visit the depot. It is a 35½-acre site in spick and span condition, where everyone's morale is high, there is excellent discipline, and things are going extremely well. The pride of the staff and of the recruits in the depot was obvious, and when one walked through the dining room and saw the list of members of the regiment who had received the Victoria Cross, it brought home to one the tradition that the Royal Irish Rangers represent.
By moving away from the present site to another part of the United Kingdom, there will be a great danger that the parents of young boys wishing to join the Army will not want them to travel so far away, and we could lose the Irish flavour that is essential to the Royal Irish Rangers. The regiment could end as Irish in name only. If there had been anything unsuccessful about the depot, one could have toned down one's criticisms, but there has been no criticism of the depot, and it has been praised on numerous occasions.
Some of the factors that will be involved in the moving of the depot have not been mentioned. For example, there will be no local place in Northern Ireland for those in the Army reservists to use as a reporting centre. Members of the regiment getting near the end of their term within the regiment can go back to the depot and gradually work back towards civvy street, but we will lost that if there is no depot in Ballymena.
The only apparent reason for this change is that of finance, but I assume that all the services that are now used in Ballymena will be used if the depot goes to another centre. The same staff would be needed, and the same number of recruits, even if they do not come from Northern Ireland, and I assume that they would have the same sort of training, and require the same sort of equipment. In practice, the move would mean transferring the employment that has been made in the Ballymena area at the moment to another part of the United Kingdom. The transfer will be from one part of the United Kingdom which desperately needs more employment to another part, which might not need the employment quite as much.
What are the figures of staff that would be lost in the North Antrim area? There are about 130 staff, about 120 recruits, about 80 junior soldiers, a civilian staff of about 50, and the ancillary workers of the Department of the Environment, both the permanent and the outside


contractors—about 30 in all. There is also a NAAFI there, and if that went the area would lose between another 15 and 20 jobs. There is an estimate that perhaps the military income generated is about £800,000 a week. As has already been said, about one third of the income of the local small shops will be lost.
For all the reasons that have been stated by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, it would be unthinkable that the depot should be moved from Ballymena. It must not be moved. We owe it to all those who have died in the service of these fine regiments to ensure that this centre, which has trained many fine soldiers, should remain as it is and where it is. It is no good talking about the fact that the Royal Irish Rangers regimental headquarters will remain in Ballymena. We sometimes talk about one man and a dog, but this would be one man and a secretary looking after the regimental headquarters.
It is essential that the Royal Irish Rangers training centre should remain where it is.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to say one thing to the Minister, and through him to the two Secretaries of State upon whom primarily the responsibility for the future of the Royal Irish Rangers will lie. The plea that has been made by my hon. Friends tonight is unique.
Every regiment resents amalgamation of any kind and anything which could even be mistaken for separating it from its past and its place. The Ministry of Defence, in organisation and reorganisation, and in its concern for administration and finance, is constantly met with resistance offered by the regimental structure, which is of the very nature of the British Army.
I do not want the Minister to imagine that what he has been listening to tonight is yet another example of that same, natural and proper, reaction which takes place from one end of the Army to the other. It is something which is unique, for no similar decision about a training centre could represent the political and military disaster which would be represented by the transfer of the Royal Irish Rangers' depot and training centre from Northern Ireland to the mainland. It would represent a military disaster equal to a serious defeat, as it would be seen by the enemies of this country, by the enemies of the Union and by all who desire to bring about the separation of Ulster from Great Britain as a major success.
Understand it or not, misrepresent it or not, all of them would be saying, "Yet another stage has beeen passed. The last unit raised and located in Ulster has been removed. We are on our way, for another victory has been won." That would be the military effect. The political effect would be unmistakable. Politics is a matter of practicalities as well as symbolism, and my hon. Friends have well illustrated the practical considerations which argue for the retention of this depot and training centre in Ballymena.
Symbolism is enormously important, and Her Majesty's Government have in recent months been careful to ensure, with some lapses, that the message that they have sent to the outside world is the message of determination, of maintenance of the Union and of defence of the right of the people of that part of the United Kingdom to choose to remain part of this nation for so long as that is their will.
We should be seen to be contradicting all those assertions and assurances by the simple act of the removal of this unit. It would be a political and military disaster.
There is no single decision which could be taken anywhere else in the dispositions and organisation of the Army which would have so incalculable an effect as the decision which we fear may be in contemplation about the Royal Irish Rifles.
Let the Government be in no doubt that weighty matters are at stake in the decision that they have to take. Let them not be afraid of creating precedents or of lending strength to the arguments of other regiments to which they know they will, in the end, have to remain deaf. This is different, this is unique, this is special and this is vital. I hope that this hour and a half in this Consolidated Fund debate will have brought that message clearly and definitely to those in the Ministry of Defence on whom this responsibility rests.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: This has been an interesting debate containing a great deal of passion, and there have been some interesting asides, including the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) calling in aid a pope's gift of Ireland to an English King as a justification for Britain recruiting troops there. I thought that at least he might have gone on to mention the Te Deum in St. Peter's after the battle of the Boyne, but perhaps that was too much to hope from the hon. Gentleman in his praise of papacy.
I feel that some of those who have contributed to the debate have over-egged their pudding. In some respects they have offered a reasonable case, but by exaggerating the political side of it they will have lost a great deal of the sympathy of members of the Labour party. The policy of the official Opposition is to work for a united Ireland and the future raising of British regiments of the line in the Six Counties is not something——

Mr. James Molyneaux: Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: The raising of British regiments of the line in the six counties of Northern Ireland is not something that the official Opposition are likely to get excited over. However, a British regiment of the line raised there is in need of training, and it is necessary to consider the response that the Government will make to Major-General Groom's report. In the first paragraph of the abridged recommendations he refers to a
'Radical and Fundamental Review of Training in the British Army', with a view to arriving at a structure and hardcore of essential training which would serve the needs of the Army from 1985 to the end of the century and beyond; while making both manpower and financial savings.
Do the major-general's proposals mark a considerable weakening of the regimental tradition within the British Army? That is something that we all regard whatever happens to the Royal Irish Rangers, as important to infantry and all regiments of the British Army. If there were to be a weakening of that tradition in the Army as a whole, we think that there would be reason for concern, but that does not necessarily follow from what the major-general has recommended.
There is a second problem that we must consider—costing. Many of those who have spoken in the debate and who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have said that the financial position has not been revealed to them and that it has not been possible sensibly to judge whether the criteria laid down by or for the major-general have


been properly met. For the moment we shall have to place our trust in the guesstimate of the Select Committee on Defence whether the Government's savings will be as great as they have suggested. That is something that the Minister will have to justify to the people of the Six Counties and to those who are maintaining the training facility at Ballymena. That will have to be justified to the country as a whole in the face of whatever changes are to be made.
I have considerable sympathy with the argument against the closing of a facility at the Ministry of Defence or the closing of a pit where there has been a great input of public finance which has generated community prosperity. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said that if the facility is removed, there will be immediate job losses. It has been said that £800,000 a week, which is rather a lot of money, is being put into the local community. If that is correct, I should like to know what the Ministry of Defence plans to do to compensate for the loss. What will happen if the hon. Gentleman's worst fears come to pass?
Once Northern Ireland Members start to treat the Royal Irish Rangers as separate, distinct and apart from the rest of the British Army, they are conceding part of their case to others, such as members of the Labour party, who believe that Northern Ireland — the Six Counties — is different from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in presenting my case I criticised the Government's decision not to allow the Rangers to operate with other regiments in Northern Ireland?

Mr. McNamara: I was coming to that.
If the Rangers are to be trained separately from other infantry battalions in the British Army that will demonstrate the difference that many of us think existed in the first place.
If the Government do not make out a good case, in accordance with Major-General Groom's recommendations, for the Royal Irish Rangers to remain and be trained in the Six Counties, we should not object, provided that the continuing policy of no deployment in the streets and fields of Ulster in the current operations is maintained. In other words, we do not want them actively to serve in the Six Counties. We believe that the Government have to make their case, but in our view there should be no alteration in the policy of deployment.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for raising this important matter. It is a vindication of the processes of the Consolidated Fund Bill that, instead of having a cosy one-to-one debate, we have had a full turnout — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] — and some excellent speeches. Having listened to the hon. Member for Belfast, South deploy the case, we heard from all the Antrim Members—the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe)—and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I assure the House that this debate will be carefully read in the Ministry of

Defence, where great attention is paid to these debates — more attention than one might assume from the attendance in the Strangers' Gallery at this hour.
The arguments were well put. As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, any reorganisation is always resisted. All of us who have been involved in military formations — as I have — have also been involved—almost by definition—in amalgamations. We are asked to amalgamate with people whom we find totally unacceptable, even though they may be of a very similar species to ourselves. Nevertheless, if our cap badges are at a slightly different angle, or something of that sort, we fight almost to the last ditch to prevent that amalgamation.
I accept, too, that it would be foolish to pretend that there are not other considerations, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Clearly, all those factors will be taken into careful account. I say, particularly to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, that such factors need to be looked at carefully in a decision of this nature.
Before I respond to the debate in detail, I want to make some general comments. Any debate about the Army and Ulster has to take note, first, of the continuing substantial contribution that is made towards helping the Royal Ulster Constabulary to combat terrorist crime. Success, in the shape of reducing military commitments and a lower number of incidents, comes slowly, but it does come. The RUC's need for active military support is declining, so the requirement for emergency reinforcement units has fallen. Increasingly, therefore, the military support required is found from the resident garrison.
That is encouraging, because the resident battalions have time to spare to do more than patrol. I know how quickly a battalion can settle into its barracks in Northern Ireland, just as it would elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The very determination to enjoy the same quality of life in Northern Ireland as is to be enjoyed in Great Britain is a particular Army contribution to restoring normality to the Province, and shows the determination that the terrorist knows he has to face. But in that relatively small part of the Province where military support is needed the scale is large — six resident units, two roulement, supporting arms and services, elements of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, the whole of the UDR. The contribution is substantial, but it is not so much naked force. Soldiers must act within the law and that requires discipline and a sense of humour to help deal with the provocation. I have found all those things in generous measure in my many visits to Northern Ireland.
Much training is carried out in Northern Ireland, despite the problems caused by the terrorists. All basic UDR training is done in the Province. If the resident garrison cannot do much towards training for their own roles, this is more than made up for by an energetic and enthusiastic Territorial Army. And, of course, there is Ballymena, the root of this morning's debate.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, South will be aware, I and my hon. Friends have promised to take full cognisance of the arguments both for and against any transfer of functions from Ballymena before any final decisions are made. The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked how long it would be before such decisions would be made. I am afraid that I cannot tell him that, not because I am being deliberately evasive, but because I simply do not know precisely when the decision will be


made, but it is likely to be some months before the decision is made because Ballymena is not being singled out.
The House, and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, will have looked at the portions of the Groom report that have been put into the Library and they will be aware that General Groom has made a series of recommendations which have to be carefully looked at before any decision can be made.
At the heart of the Army's expertise and experience is a tradition developed through the regimental system—I accept what various hon. Members have said about the importance of the regimental system and if any of us felt that this was a move away from that we would seek to resist it—which can trace its origins and geographical associations back through the centuries. Yet the Army has never drawn back from change. On the contrary, it has always shown itself ready to adapt to meet changing circumstances, to take advantage of new technologies, to organise and train to meet today's needs. Each of those characteristics has been fundamental to the development of today's Army and each is essential for its continuing vitality.
The Royal Irish Rangers can count themselves as being as successful as any in holding true to those two principles. Although only constituted under its present name since 1968, the regiment can trace its origins and associations with Ireland back through one of its lineal predecessors, the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, to 1689, while its other forebears, the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Irish Fusiliers, both claim an ancestry going back nearly 200 years. I need not emphasise the benefits which such tradition and continuity have brought to today's Royal Irish Rangers.
Despite their long connection with Ireland, these troops have never been mere stay-at-homes. In their history they have served with great distinction in campaigns around the globe, turning their hand in action so diverse as stamping out human sacrifice in Ceylon in 1817 to gliding in the second world war. At home they have shown themselves similarly adaptable, being based in many locations in England as well as in Ireland, and in their NATO role the two Royal Irish Rangers battalions are currently based at Dover and Chester.
Ballymena's links with the regiment are relatively recent in origin, dating only from the second world war when it became the home of the Royal Ulster Rifles, while its connection with the Royal Irish Rangers as currently constituted dates from the regiment's formation in 1968.
I am glad to be able to give hon. Members an assurance that there are no plans to move the regimental headquarters of the Royal Irish Rangers from Ballymena. That is unaffected by the arrangments for future Army training, which I shall now describe in more detail. Before I do so, some hon. Members were a bit hard in their reference to a man and his dog or a secretary. Should the proposal be accepted—I emphasise the word "should" because no decision has been taken—there are no plans to move not only the regimental headquarters but also the Territorial Army, the recruiting team and all the cadets who are currently stationed there.
One of the most important formative elements in the Army's expertise is its training regime. It is, I believe, generally acknowedged that the primary role of an army in peace time is to train for war. Perhaps the old Chinese proverb puts it more succinctly:

The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.
The outstanding success of our training programme is fully illustrated in Army operations world-wide. British Army training is among the best in the world. It is recognised as such by our many friends overseas who send their personnel to be trained in this country.
While we have every right to be proud of our achievement in this field, there is no room for complacency. Training is sterile unless it adapts with the times, seeking to anticipate, wherever possible, rather than simply following past trends. We must also take account of the fact that it is a very expensive business. It absorbs something like 10 per cent. of the total Army budget, and involves some 25,000 staff, military and civilian. We have a clear responsibility, therefore, to keep training under the most careful scrutiny to ensure that all our programmes are effective and relevant to today's needs, and to ensure that we are getting the best possible value for money. Since coming to office, the Government have pursued a vigorous campaign to eradicate fat in all areas of defence activity, and we have sought, wherever possible, to ensure that the maximum resources are thus made available for the front line.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of the Minister's argument about the importance of training, would he accept that the integrated concept that I put forwards one to be borne in mind? I accept the Minister's point about the importance of training in territorial service. I have a poignant memory of my last sight of an uncle who trained in the "Terriers", and who was last seen in Calais. Would the Minister accept the concept of integration of the Territorial Army in the training scheme at Ballymena?

Mr. Pattie: I understand the point that hon. Gentleman makes. All these things have to be taken in the round, and all the considerations have to be carefully weighed. As a former territorial soldier myself, having served in a battalion that did not have a regular battalion on the same site, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is possible to be effective, if one has the hard-core of the permanent staff present. I understand his point, but I do not think it is one of the more powerful and persuasive parts of his argument.
The Groom report was commissioned in 1982, when General Groom was asked to undertake a radical and fundamental review of British Army training, with a view to arriving at a structure and hard-core of essential training that would serve the needs of the Army from 1986 to the end of the century, and beyond. There are some important pillars in the report—three key elements. I would like to share these with the House to make certain that hon. Members are fully aware of what General Groom was driving at.
The three central pillars of the report are as follows. The first was called the functional approach, whereby he sought to relate training to the structure of the Army, based on seven groups of arms and services. He scrutinised the Army from front line to rear, identified the basic blocks, and suggested how they might come together for training. This would involve functional schools, providing common basic training for all recruits to the group, and specialist schools at a higher level, offering their particular expertise to train students from all arms and services. The second pillar was the need to tailor the level and type of training precisely to the needs of the individual. It has been suggested from time to time that the Army over-trains its men.
I happen not to share that view, but I recognise that the timing of this training, and its place in a soldier's career, needs to be most carefully planned.
To help this process General Groom suggested that training should fall into three phases. Phase one would be basic recruit training, undertaken where possible on a functional group basis. Phase two, or "special to arm" training should, in General Groom's words, provide
the minimum training needed to enable a man to take his place in a unit of the field army.
After that it was suggested that he should have regimental experience before he and the Army decided whether he should have additional career training. In that event, he would commence phase three advanced rank and trade training, which would, in effect span his remaining career in graduated steps, interspersed with planned periods of regimental duties.
The third and final pillar of the Groom report concerned junior training. The general saw this as a fundamental requirement, pointing out that 50 per cent. of the Army's warrant officers and senior NCOs began their military life in junior schools. However, he also recognised that junior training is particularly expensive and he considered, having established the need to recruit about 8,000 juniors each year, and having provided the necessary training facilities for them, that they should become the bedrock of recruiting. He suggested that we should recruit the optimum number each year, train them in large and efficient schools of about 800, phase their intake to compensate for wastage and finally adjust the level of adult training and recruitment year by year to meet the varying total requirement.
That is not to say that we are unaware of the important points made on the subject of junior soldiers. The hon. Member for Antrim, East highlighted the importance of such soldiers and the relationship of their families to the depot. We understand that. This was also dealt with by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
I hope that the House will accept that a report as significant and lengthy as General Groom's will take a considerable amount of time to study. It is a substantial

document, containing a wealth of radical ideas and running to three volumes. Although it is fascinating, it is taking a great deal of time to study.
General Groom was adamant—and we agree with him—that his recommendations have to be seen as an entity. He was not producing a shopping list, to which we could say yes or no, running down and putting ticks or crosses against certain items. He has offered a new rationale for Army training embodying a variety of new principles. It is our task, as the responsible Ministers, to weigh all of the implications before, if appropriate, working out in practical terms how to proceed to implementation.
The radical proposals in General Groom's thorough and wide-ranging report inevitably touch on rather sensitive issues and will undoubtedly disturb many settled perceptions within and outside the Army. It is for this reason that I and my colleagues have undertaken to weigh carefully all the relevant factors, including the concern that has been expressed in the debate about the future of the Ballymena base.
The Army's current excellence and continued development depends on a vital balance between continuity and adaptability. It is this balance that we shall be keeping in the forefront of our minds while we examine the proposals in the coming months. The task is being undertaken as vigorously as possible but it is a major exercise and will take some time to complete. I have tried to give the hon. Member for Antrim, North some idea of the time involved. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone received a letter from my right hon. Friend to which he referred. I have a similar letter, from my right hon. Friend, to another hon. Member, in front of me in which my right hon. Friend expresses a similar sentiment. It is probably the most fitting sentiment on which to close the debate—while thanking again the hon. Member for Belfast, South for initiating it, and all those who have taken part in it. In the letter my right hon. Friend says that he fully recognises the strength of the arguments against moving training from Ballymena and he therefore promises that all of these arguments will be taken fully into account before any final decisions are made.

Orders of the Day — Atomic Tests (British Service Men)

Mr. David Alton: I am sorry that the Minister of State who has just replied to the previous debate should have the invidious task of replying also to this one. He could be forgiven for a sense of deja vu, since only last July, in another Consolidated Fund Bill debate on this same subject—atomic explosions in the south Pacific in the 1950s — he also drew the short straw.
I make no apology for having sought to raise this important issue again. I want to return to some of the questions that I put to the Minister last July. First, I want to press him on the orders which were issued to our service men and the conditions which prevailed during those tests. Secondly, I want to question him about the faltering progress which the long-awaited survey of the personnel involved in those tests is making. Thirdly, I want to ask him what redress he believes should be made available to service men or their widows and whether he will be prepared to look again at section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which prevents service men from seeking compensation through the courts.
The Minister will have received from me a copy of the report of the Defence Research Policy Committee, circulated on 20 May 1953, which has been made available through the Public Record Office under the 30-year rule. This document was written in May 1953, six months after Britain's first nuclear explosion off the coast of the Monte Bello Islands in Western Australia. In October 1953 Britain tested two more devices at Emu Field in South Australia. This is among the first official records to be released on the atomic bomb tests. It says:
Many of these tests are of the highest importance to departments, since on their results depend the design of equipment, changes in organisation and administration, and offensive and defensive tactics.
The report says that the Navy required information on the effects of various types of atomic explosions on ships, their contents and equipment. The RAF similarly wanted information on the effects of explosions on airfields, submarine bases and the oil industry.
Undoubtedly the most disquieting and disturbing part of the report refers to the Army's requirements. This 1953 report says:
The Army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men, with and without various types of protection.
In a concise and tightly written report, there is no equivocation or ambiguity. Men were to be used as human guinea pigs—not dummies or instruments. Men were to be deliberately exposed to the effects of radiation, with and without protective clothing. It was to be a glorified scientific experiment.
It says something for, at best, the woeful ignorance, and, at worst, the callous indifference of those who issued those orders that, in the Army's book, equipment and stores appear to rank higher than men in this bizarre order of merit.
When we debated this matter last July, I pressed the Minister to say whether he accepted the findings of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. In its report of last June the council claimed that the British authorities decided that 200 British and 62 Australian service men would experience the effects of an atomic

blast at closer range than normally allowed. The men were to be situated a mere five miles from the 20-kiloton bomb that was exploded—a bomb roughly equivalent to those exploded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose destructive capacity was therefore well understood. This was during the Buffalo series of tests in 1956.
Last July, in reply to the previous debate, the Minister said that he was not familiar with that report. I hope that this morning he will be able to tell the House whether he has now considered both the Australian report and the 1953 report of the Defence Research Policy Committee. Perhaps he will also confirm that, after the Monte Bello test in October 1952, an Australian vessel, the Hawkesbury, was sent to survey the area and that, according to a telegram from the Commonwealth Relations Office to the British high commissioner in Australia, its role was to
guard against the collection of intelligence".
Will the Minster confirm that an earlier signal from the Hawkesbury stated that radiation would pose
a considerable hazard to health
for six months
and possibly even longer"?
Does the Minister share the view of Dr. Rotblatt, one of the world's top radiation experts, that there is no such thing as a safe threshold for radiation?
The crux of the matter is that an air of secrecy has surrounded basic facts about the British tests. Information which would help to establish the true level of radiation exposure has been deliberately concealed. Hitherto, the Government have refused to release the yield of each of the bombs tested, although the yield of United States' bomb tests was readily available. The Government have refused also to release vital information, such as the 1968 Pearce report, which described the contamination left behind on the Maralinga range.
The Ministry says that that document is classified. It details how highly radioactive cobalt-60 pellets were scattered over the range after a 1957 atomic test, and were later collected and buried. Asked by The Observer why the pellets were collected many years later and buried 8 ft down in 1½ in thick lead containers, the Ministry's spokesman maintained:
They were not a health hazard when scattered. But somebody might have gathered them all together if we had left them.
I am sure that the Minister does not seriously expect us to believe that lame explanation. Surely he agrees that the contents of the Pearce report should be made available to hon. Members and to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association.
During the last such debate in July I outlined a number of cases that demonstrated the ineffective nature of the precautions taken to protect our service men, Anecdotal evidence exists in abundance. In this weeks's Sunday People the case of Seaman Joe Greavey is highlighted. He was on the frigate Plym which took an atomic bomb to Monte Bello in 1951. The newspaper reports:
With only dark glasses to protect them, he and his shipmates stood with their backs to the blast when the bomb was exploded only 18 miles away. Three years ago, Joe died of cancer at the age of 62.
His widow lives in Liverpool.
The Glasgow widow of Frank McCann, who died in 1972 after taking part in the Christmas Island tests in 1957, is reported in the Sunday People as saying:


Frank told me he was never issued any kind of protective clothing. They just walked around in shorts or swimming trunks the whole time including during the tests.
That statement is confirmed by former RAF Warrant Officer Tom Armstrong, who says:
We were just dressed in khaki drill. There was no protective clothing.
We must not rely just on anecdotes. Australian service men who served shoulder to shoulder, side by side, with British service men have had their accounts tested in the Australian courts of law. According to a World Medicine article published last year,
To date, five widows of Australian test veterans have received compensation in out-of-court settlements. Another three claims await court decisions. If they succeed, 300 compensation claims could follow in Australia.
In Britain, careful research, painstakingly carried out by Dr. Alice Stewart of the University of Birmingham, revealed a level of blood cancers among service men who were at Christmas Island at two and a half times the normal incidence rate.
In the face of such overwhelming evidence, I found the comments of one man greatly involved in the tests, Air Vice Marshal Stewart Menaull, remarkably unconvincing. In this morning's Daily Mail he dismissed the suggestions contained in the Ministry's 1953 document as "absolute nonsense". However, he would say that. It is worth reminding the House of his comments to reporters as group captain in charge of the military task force as he set out for the Pacific in 1956:
It will be a wonderful experience for everybody.
For many who were later to contract blood cancers, leukaemia and cataracts, it was certainly an experience that they would never forget. For many widows and relatives who lost loved ones, there is bitterness and anger that such a low price was put on the value of human life.
The Minister not only owes it to the relatives of those service men and the House to publish all the documents surrounding these tests, but has a duty to make known the names of those who compiled the 1953 document and to investigate vigorously the way in which those declared objectives were pursued.
Dealing next with the survey that the Government announced last year, I have a series of questions that I should like to put to the Minister. When does he expect the survey to be completed? Could it seriously take until 1987, as some commentators have suggested, before the report is likely to be completed? What is the latest number of personnel to be examined? In the debate last July I pointed out that widely differing figures had been given in answer to parliamentary questions, some of which I tabled in the month before the debate. The figures ranged from 13,500 to 20,000 people, and they were given in the space of only six months.
Has the Army been able to locate the files of all the service men involved? If not—this is a crucial point—how many medical files and how many of the service men involved in the test have been located to date? The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association says that the files are in a shambles and claims that only about 6,000 people have been located so far. I would welcome the Minister's comment on that.
The Minister will also recall that I expressed doubts about the suitability of the National Radiological Protection Board to conduct the survey. I suggested that

it was a case of the watchdog being too closely identified with the burglar. The view of the Joint Committee on the Medical Effects of Nuclear Weapons is contained in a letter which reached me today. It states:
The National Radiological Protection Board's expertise is in monitoring radiation exposure, not in carrying out health surveys such as the one entrusted to it by the Secretary of State for Defence. Indeed, the study was to have been headed by a physicist (who has since died) not a medical epidemiologist. An investigation of the complexity of the one to be undertaken could only be carried out satisfactorily by persons suitably trained. At the very outset of the NRPB's study, therefore, sceptics may find some confirmation for doubts aroused by the Government's entrusting an investigation of it own liability to a government body. The choice is surprising in view of the fact that there are at least five university departments which would be sure to carry out the study with an academic impartiality which could not reasonably be questioned.
Does the Minister fully realise the high scientific standards that will be expected of the study and the care with which data will not just need to be collected but to have been seen to be collected if the results are to be seen clearly by the medical profession, the patients and bereaved relatives to have been reached by objective and impartial processes?
Will the Minister confirm that every step will be taken to ensure that the greatest scientific rigour is brought to bear? Many bereaved relatives see the long drawn-out nature of the survey as a way to try to dampen opposition and fob off people. Surely the Minister does not seriously expect the House to believe that it will take another four years to complete that survey, if that is the case.
Lastly, I draw the Minister's attention to the subject of redress. In that context I bring to his notice a motion which will be debated by the Royal British Legion at its spring conference. It says:
That this Conference is concerned at the recent reports relating to the possible effects on health of those members of HM Forces who were involved in the Nuclear Tests in the South Pacific and elsewhere and urges HM Government to effect publication of the results of the study currently being carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board as soon as possible, and should this indicate a causal link between certain conditions suffered by some of those involved, to take all necessary measures to provide adequate compensation to those whose health has been affected in this way and to the widows of those who have died from these conditions and further to provide checks for their offspring.
The Royal British Legion, some of whose members I met last Thursday, is most anxious about the anomalies which exist. It says that over the past year it has received over 100 inquiries, 14 appeals are currently pending and 20 claims are in the pipeline. It relates the case of a Welsh widow whose husband was involved in the clearing-up operation after the tests. The Department of Health and Social Security has awarded her a pension because it accepts that her husband's death was attributable to his service.
The pension cannot be enhanced because he died more than seven years after the events occurred. If he had died during the first seven years, the onus of proof would lie not on his family but on the Department. I understand that that rule originated in the 1920s. Clearly it has no relevance today in terms of radiation-related diseases, which might come to light only many years after the event. It has no bearing on long-term psychiatric diseases either, which is perhaps more relevant to the previous debate, on Northern Ireland.
Similarly, as soon as the Department accepts that a death is in any way related to active service, section 10 of


the Crown Proceedings Act applies. That law, which was understandably enacted to prevent millions of claims after world war two, is being used for a purpose for which it was never intended. Unlike his opposite number in Australia, who can seek redress through the courts, once attributability is accepted, the British service man's right of appeal to the courts is removed. That may well be an acceptable doctrine in battle. When men sign on, they inevitably accept risks of serious injury or death in action, but in peacetime it is an unacceptable and unnecessary deprivation of the rights of service men engaged in normal day-to-day activities.
I return to the anomalies that the rules create. At present, the Ministry of Defence is hedging its bets. Astonishing contradictions between the Ministry and the Department of Health and Social Security are coming to light. I bring to the attention of the House the case of seven such service men, highlighted a few weeks ago by the Sunday Telegraph. It stated, in a report by Peter Dobbie:
Seven of the 12,000 servicemen who took part in Britain's nuclear test programme 30 years ago, when 21 atomic bombs were exploded in Australia and Christmas Island have received pensions and payments averaging £2,000 from the Department of Health.
The Money, paid to the men or their dependent wives and families, is for cancer-related illnesses which the department accepts were contracted during military service.
However, Health officials last week denied any link between the disabilities and the atmospheric nuclear tests, which took place between 1952–58 at Christmas Island and Malden Islands in the South Pacific, Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia and the Monte Bello Islands off the Western Australia coast.
A letter to one of the seven, who last week received a cheque for —2,042, read: 'You will see that on the advice of the Department's doctors your claim is admitted on the grounds that your rodent ulcer is due to exposure to strong sunlight.
It is not accepted that your condition is related in any way to possible exposure to radiation from atom bomb tests as claimed by you.
It has been decided that, owing to the nature of your condition a final settlement of the extent of your disablement cannot yet be made. We propose to review your assessment in about four years' time.'
The letter and payment made in the last six months surprised ex servicemens' groups demanding Government compensation for men who served at test sites and are ill.
The Ministry of Defence has refused to recognise their case which is being studied by the National Radiological Protection Board, an independent research group part-funded by the department who last week began a £200,000 survey to find out whether the tests are responsible for serious ailments, including cancer.
There is another interesting section in the article, which details what happened to one ex-service man:
The 46-year-old ex-seaman bears facial surgery scars from the rodent ulcer—a cross between a cancer and a chronic ulcer.
The ex-seaman reports that at the time he was serving in the South Pacific,
He wore dark goggles and anti-flash protective equipment for the test but still recalls catching the full glare of the bomb. He said: 'It was terrifying—something you would not wish on your worst enemy.'
Another 63 who claimed compensation were refused after the Department researched applications with family doctors and held their own medical examinations.
That is clearly unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will investigate the situation. I hope that he will also promise today that the Government will review section 10 and consider introducing amending legislation. The Royal British Legion would cogently argue that the case is made for a independent inquiry to investigate a host of anomalies and their replacement by a far more equitable system. It

also sees a clear need for a department of veterans affairs within the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points, too.
Those are the three areas to which I wish to draw attention today. I thank the Minister for his patience in listening to the arguments and I hope that he will answer each of my questions when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on raising an important subject which, as I am sure both he and the Minister agree, must be properly investigated and debated in the coming months.
The issue is important for two reasons. First, it is fundamental that the service men and civilians who participated in or were in the vicinity of the tests in the 1950s and their families should receive the justice that they deserve—a thorough, independent investigation into the effects of the tests and, where it is shown that they are suffering as a consequence of the tests, adequate compensation.
Secondly, the matter has a bearing on the major effects of radiation, especially relatively low levels of radiation, on human beings. The information that we have on this is based on limited events in the past, and it is important that this data should be used to enhance our knowledge in this area. That knowledge may be important in relation not just to nuclear weapons, but to safety levels at nuclear power stations, where every revision so far has been downwards.
The House will be well aware of the history of these developments and of the famous letter published by Dr. Alice Stewart and her colleagues in The Lancet last April. I also pay tribute to the tremendous work being done by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and its chairman, Ken McGinley, in seeking, first, to locate and identify as many people as possible who participated in the tests and, secondly, to focus public attention on this issue of immense importance not only to them and their families but to the country generally.
The first and crucial issue is the compelling need carry out a comprehensive, independent scientific investigation. There should be no argument about that. That investigation must be acceptable not just to the Ministry of Defence and the Government but to scientific and public opinion generally.
In that context, I agree with the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that it would have been far better to have the survey carried out by an independent group. I in no way seek to criticise the National Radiological Protection Board, but, with respect, it would have been much better if university departments or even the Royal Society of Scientists had been involved in carrying out the study. I hope that at this late stage the Government will not rule out looking into that again. At the very least, it may be practicable to invite the Royal Society and perhaps the British Medical Association to collaborate and to work jointly with the National Radiological Protection Board in the investigation and survey.
Secondly, it is important to make public all the assumptions and criteria which are taken into account and used in the study.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has referred to the 8,000, 12,000 or, as now estimated, 20,000 people who took part in the atmospheric nuclear weapons test


programmes. It is of fundamental importance that the basis on which the figure of 20,000 was arrived at should be openly described.

Mr. Alton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the reply given by Lord Glenarthur in another place last April? Putting the figure at 13,700 people to be surveyed, he said that the aim was
to avoid statistical bias".
The Prime Minister, speaking of the 20,000 people, said:
These will include support personnel who worked in areas away from the test areas and others who were, at the time, not considered to be at any risk from radiation exposure." — [Official Report, 14 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 394.]
Many feel that some people have been included in the survey simply to make up the numbers. If so, the findings of the survey will be distorted and biased.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is vital that the basis upon which the various groups were included should be properly documented.
The National Radiological Protection Board's protocol, published last October, referred to 12,000 people, including 6,000 from the Royal Navy, 2,000 from the Army, 3,000 from the Royal Air Force and 1,000 United Kingdom civilians.
The protocol states:
While there is confidence that this listing, which will be referred to as the 'blue book' data, includes almost all, if not all, personnel who were monitored and shown to have been exposed to radiation above the threshold of measurement, it is clear that it does not include everyone who took part in the atmospheric nuclear weapon test programme.
In a written reply in December 1983, the Minister who is to reply to the debate, stated:
The number of United Kingdom personnel who took part in the United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapon test programme is estimated to be about 20,000." — [Official Report, 15 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 547.]
He also referred to information about the exposures recorded.
I do not suggest that the Government are seeking to bias the results. That charge would be wholly unacceptable. It is crucial, however, that the basis on which people were selected is properly and objectively stated at an early stage, and that there should be the maximum possible disclosure of information. All Government Departments, particularly in situations such as this, have an inherent tendency towards secrecy. We want an end to that secrecy. It is vital that there should be disclosures on that point and on a number of others.
For instance, why, after so many years, cannot we be told about the size of the bombs used in the tests? The Minister has said that some were in the kiloton range and some in the megaton range. Why is that information still treated as secret? There should be an investigation into the procedures followed—or perhaps not followed—at the time of the tests. The survey, of course, does not refer to those procedures. It is purely a comparison of those who were subjected to the tests, or who were in their vicinity, with the control group. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred to the top secret document, which has now been released, headed:
Atomic Weapons Trials—Report by the Defence Research Policy Committee.
I assume that the Minister will confirm that that document is authentic. We must be entitled to know the outcome of

the statement that the Army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men with and without various types of protection. There can be no justification for keeping that information secret.
There has been a study on this subject by the Australian Government entitled, "Health of atomic test personnel", which was published towards the end of last year. The Minister must surely accept that, to carry out a study on the basis of a posted questionnaire on events, some of which took place 30 years ago, is not adequate. The authors of the report make that clear. In their summary they say:
Within the limitations of a survey based on the completion of posted questionnaries relating to events of many years before by those whose health is the subject of the survey, in the absence of any other Australian populations with whose health that of the survey population could be compared, and with the difficulties inherent in interpreting large numbers of tests of statistical significance, the analyses give no grounds for concluding that Australian personnel who participated in the UK atomic test programmes in the 1950s and 1960s suffered significant adverse health effects.
We should ask some questions about the nature of the study upon which the Government are embarking. The protocol refers to the way in which control groups are selected. Selection of the control groups is as important as the selection of the service men who participated in the tests. If there is to be scientific and objective investigation of data, there should be proper participation by outside independent experts.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred to compensation. It is remarkable that the Department of Health and Social Security granted compensation to service men and stated that compensation was granted due to exposure to strong sunlight while serving in the Pacific. It then said that it did not accept that the condition was in any way related to exposure to radiation as a result of atomic bomb tests, as claimed.
There is an overwhelming view in the House that service men and others who participated in tests are entitled to a thorough investigation and, where appropriate, compensation, as are their families. I hope that the Minister will take on board the gravity of the issue and ensure that the inquiry is regarded as appropriate and has credibility with outside experts and the community. It would be an enormous mistake to embark on a study that proved unacceptable to the people who have been directly involved and was unconvincing to independent experts.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): With the permission of the House, I shall reply to this important debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) can maintain the appropriate objectivity on this matter. It is a difficult subject that is prone, understandably, to great emotion and to press reporting that is long on sensationalism and short on facts and analysis. He and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) will accept that we would not wish to do anything in such a debate to aggravate the understandable concerns of those who have contracted the ailments to which he referred.
The subject of the debate is the rights of former British service men involved in atomic bomb tests, so perhaps I might say something about that first, and then discuss some of the other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
As to the rights of service men generally to claim compensation, the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 introduced the principle that the Crown would be in the same position as any private person in litigation. However, Parliament recognised when the Act was passed that it would not be acceptable for a service man, or the dependants of a deceased service man, to be able to bring an action for damages against the Crown and/or an individual service man on the grounds that the injury of death had been caused through the negligence of another member of the armed forces.
Service men are called upon to risk injury and sometimes death not only in operations but in training, and it would make the conduct of the armed forces impossible if a service man could bring an action against another service man, possibly his superior or subordinate in rank, or against the Crown, for alleged negligence during service activities. Therefore, provided that certain conditions are met, section 10 of the Act bars any legal action against the Crown or a service man arising out of the death of or injury to another service man.
In addition to Ministry of Defence pension schemes, recompense is provided by the war pensions scheme administered by the DHSS. If the death of, or injury suffered by, a service man is considered by a DHSS medical board to be attributable to service, a war disablement pension or a war widow's pension, as appropriate, is awarded by the DHSS. There is also a range of further allowances to compensate for differing degrees of disability. For a claim to succeed, there must be an indication that the injury is attributable to service in the armed forces. That applies to all service men, without regard to the tasks performed.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill will be aware of the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the House on 10 November in answer to a question about legislation on this matter. The House was informed then that the arrangements that I have described are under review.
As to these nuclear tests, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his point of view, and that of those whom he represents, does not rest on the assumption that some harm was done to those who took part in the tests. I would be the first to agree that it would be entirely wrong to deny compensation if harm were proved. But it is equally wrong to believe that the natural sympathy that one has for those who are suffering from serious illness, or who have been bereaved, is in itself a justification for denying the available scientific and other evidence. Our claim that the tragic illnesses suffered by some of those who took part in the tests were not caused by exposure to radiation from those tests, is based on that scientific evidence and does not reflect a lack of sympathy for those afflicted.
Essentially, there are two points to be considered. First, a scientific assessment must be made of the adequacy of the safety precautions taken at the time of the test in the light of the most up-to-date knowledge about the biological effects of radiation. Secondly, the statistical evidence must be examined to see whether the test participants have suffered an abnormal incidence of those diseases that may be caused by exposure to radiation.

Mr. Alton: Perhaps, before the Minister leaves that point, he could deal specifically with the case raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and myself, of seven people who have been awarded pensions because of

illnesses that have been deemed by the DHSS to be directly attributable to problems caused to them during the course of their service. Does the Minister accept that the act of accepting that attributability prevents those people from taking action because of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 10, which prevents them from going to courts? Does he also accept that it is not right that British service men should be prevented from testing their cases in the courts of law when their Australian counterparts have the right to do so?

Mr. Pattie: I have already rehearsed the position for the hon. Gentleman and told him that certain aspects are under review, and he would not expect me to go over it all again. I gave a detailed account of the safety precautions when I replied to the hon. Gentleman's debate, at a similar hour to this, on 25 July last year. Therefore, I propose to stress some of the main points now.
Safety precautions were taken that compare favourably with the international standards in force today. Radiation exposures were predicted on the basis of expected weapon performance, and all the weapons performed within the expected parameters. Measure exposures matched the estimates, and information on these exposures is still available. I urge those hon. Members who want to know more about this aspect to read Hansard for the July debate and the detailed Australian report known as AIRAC 9, entitled "British nuclear tests in Australia—a review of the operational safety measures and possible after-effects", a copy of which is in the Library.
We recognise the real perceptions of those individuals and their desire to attribute their present suffering either to something other than natural causes or to an unusual and notable event in their past lives. It is not unnatural for men who have experienced the frightening effects of blast, and observed the intense flash of a nuclear weapon, to assume that they were exposed to high levels of radiation. They were not.
The hon. Gentleman has referred in somewhat derogatory terms, and using what he admitted himself was anecdotal evidence from an unimpeachable source such as the Sunday People, to the phrase "guinea-pigs". A force of officers was positioned closer to the test detonation than other observers to experience at first hand some of the effects. The hon. Gentleman raised the same question last July and I wrote to him after the debate with a full account of the circumstances. I want to make this point clear, because I can see that, reading through the 1953 chiefs of staff committee paper, the phrase that has attracted attention and that is capable of misinterpretation, if it were believed to be possible, and I accept that there are people who believe that such things are possible, that, to test the effects on men, they would be asked to stand outside in either a protected or an unprotected condition. I shall explain what was meant by that phrase.
The requirement to
discover the detailed effects of various types of nuclear explosions on men with and without various types of protection
does not mean that protected and unprotected men had to be exposed to the hazardous nuclear weapon effects. Indeed, this would be in complete contravention of the safety policy and philosophy for all our nuclear weapons tests. The blast and thermal and radiation consequences of a nuclear explosion on man were determined by making measurements of the flux levels of various protected and


unprotected positions using instruments, and then calculating what the consequences of those flux levels would be for man.

Mr. Alton: The Minister spoke of the Australian report which had been placed in the Library of the House. Does he not agree that it would also be appropriate to place in the Library the report of the Australian Ionising and Radiation Advisory Council, which made it clear that 200 British service men were deliberately placed closer than usual to an atomic blast to test the effects on them? In that case, it was a 20 kiloton bomb, a bomb the size of that used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
How can the Minister claim that the statement in this report is in any way ambiguous when it makes it clear that the army wanted to discover the detailed effects on men with and without various types of protection? That is plain English. That cannot be open to misinterpretation, and the rest of the report is written cogently, coherently and in clearly unambiguous terms. Why does he claim that this statement is so ambiguous?

Mr. Pattie: I am telling the hon. Gentleman what happened. In trying to meet him half way, I am explaining that if one reads the sentence about discovering the detailed effects of various types of nuclear explosions on men with and without various types of protection, one could immediately leap to the conclusion that there would be two categories of men, some with and some without protection, stuck on the hillside. I have explained—and I will not detain the House by going through it all again —the position by saying that computations were made of what would be called a protected position and an unprotected position, then asking, "If a man had been in that protected position, what would have been the effect on him?" and "If a man had been in that other position, further over on another hillside, what would have been the effect on him?"

Mr. Strang: I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but anybody looking at the issue now must conclude that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get an adequate answer to the question posed in this document — the question of what would be the effect on men, protected or unprotected—in that way. Is the Minister saying that it would be possible without actually exposing men to radiation, to conclude what would be the effects of various radiation levels on men, protected or unprotected? That is the whole point, for we are uncertain even now about the effects on the human population of low levels of radiation, and that is why only recently we have had to reduce the safety levels.

Mr. Pattie: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that that is what I am saying because whatever we are prepared to do must be compatible with the safety policy and very strict regulations that were observed at the time; and there is no question, as it were, of playing fast and loose with those.
The Australian report to which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred was the 1956 Buffalo series at Maralinga, where it was decided to allow service men to experience the effects of nuclear explosions at ranges closer than previously allowed, and 200 United Kingdom service men were stationed at about eight kilometres up

wind from zero. Their movements were under the full control of atomic weapons research establishment personnel.
They had undergone a dress rehearsal prior to the event and after the event they visited non-contaminated areas to observe the effects on military material and some of them, three days after the event, also visited the contaminated areas under strict radiological safety control. The personnel wore dosimeters and radiation levels were also monitored by other instruments. The dosimeters proved that the radiation exposures were below the prescribed levels. That is why I am giving the hon. Members for Mossley Hill and Edinburgh, East the facts and urging them to act with their customary restraint. This is a subject which is capable of being handled in an entirely sensationalist way. I hope that it will be accepted from previous exchanges across the Floor of the House that I do not seek to fob off those who are concerned about these matters. It is reckoned that the study will take two to three years. It may well take three years.
I have been asked about personnel numbers. The position is as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said when he quoted one of my previous answers, or a letter that he had received from me. I am grateful to him for not suggesting — the hon. Member for Mossley Hill came close to making the suggestion in an intervention—that the numbers are being artificially inflated to try to defuse the effect of the epidemiological survey. I think that both hon. Members will accept that this is a no-win situation. If the numbers are very low and in some way artificially restricted, the Government are accused of restricting numbers to try to gain some advantage. If we say that we shall try to find anyone who might have been affected, we are open to the gibe that we are trying artificially to inflate the numbers. I suppose that I should not be grumbling because it is the lot of Ministers to be in that position.
We are talking of about 20,000 individuals. In February 1983, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of about 12,000 service men and 1,500 civilians. The uncertainty about additional numbers lies with those men who were assessed at the time not to be at any radiation risk whatsoever and, therefore, do not figure in the lists maintained by the radiological radiation authorities.
Our best estimate of the number of persons to be considered for the Pacific test is about 12,000. The remaining 8,000 are associated with the Australian tests and certain other operations such as the Maralinga experimental programme and the clean-up operations at Maralinga and Christmas island.
It is well known that cancer, the disease primarily associated with exposure to radiation, has a high natural incidence. About one in four of the male population in Britain contracts it and one in five dies of it. It is also fairly well known that although many advances have been made in cancer research it is at present seldom possible to determine the cause of any particular cancer by clinical means. Consequently, the only way of determining cause and effect is by undertaking what is known as an epidemiological survey.
When I last spoke in the House on this subject in July 1983 in reply to a previous Consolidated Fund Bill debate, much had been made of a survey of Christmas island test participants undertaken by the University of Brimingham Department of Social Medicine. Preliminary results of this


survey were published in a letter to The Lancet on 9 April 1983 and the hon. Member for Mossley Hill quoted from it as follows:
The follow-up of the South Pacific population is far from complete but already there is evidence of an abnormally high incidence of leukaemia and other RES neoplasms".
We said at that time that the results were not to be relied upon because the study lacked at least two of the essential ingredients for a reliable survey: unbiased information and an adequate sample size. I would not want to hazard a guess at the reasons for it, but we have heard rather less about a second letter to The Lancet that was published on 8 October 1983, which concluded that
a confident interpretation of the data is not possible.
It urged that a comprehensive follow-up operation be undertaken of all men involved in nuclear weapon tests. I think that the apparent difficulties of this subject are demonstrated more vividly by this survey than by anything that I can say.
On 3 October last year, one week before the second Lancet letter was published, I announced the details of a survey being undertaken on behalf of the Ministry of Defence by the National Radiological Protection Board. I stressed then, as I do again now, that the decision to commission the survey did not reflect any loss of confidence in the safety measures taken for the tests. However, I knew that many members of the public and of the House were alarmed and distressed by the claims which were being made in the press and elsewhere, and I realised that there was a need for additional information which such a survey would generate.
We had a discussion at that time, and on several other occasions in the House at about the time that the appointment of the NRPB was being made, about its independence and suitability. I had hoped that both hon. Gentlemen would be prepared to accept a body of the eminence of the NRPB, with considerable experience in this subject—that, after all, is one of the main criteria—as an acceptable assessment source. The cause that both hon. Gentlemen genuinely espouse, and which I fully respect, is not served by casting further doubt on its objectivity, competence, and so on.
I am pleased to be able to say that the survey is progressing well. I have never pretended that it would be

easy, for we always knew that, if it was to be worthwhile, it would have to be done properly, and it is true that we have already had to overcome many difficulties and will undoubtedly face some more. The hon. Member for Mossley Green expressed concern in the House last July that the survey would take an agonizingly long time. I would rather face that kind of criticism than have to concede at the end of the day that the study was not sufficiently comprehensive, or suffered from inadequate statistical treatment, or was otherwise ill founded. However, I am conscious, too, that a balance must be struck between reliability and speed. On the one hand, it would be quite improper for me to exert pressure on NRPB to be a party to a study which did not meet the high standards of scientific integrity which we have come to expect from that body. In any event, the board would rightly refuse to undertake such a study if that restricted it from making a sound scientific judgment of the outcome.
On the other hand, I share the concern of those whose expectations have been raised by the fact that a study is being conducted to resolve the issue one way or the other. There must be no false expectations.
Mr. Dunster, the director of the NRPB, in introducing the study protocol, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred, emphasised that it must not be expected to provide a major new insight into the effects of ionising radiation. Its purpose is to establish whether there has been significant excess mortality or incidence of cancer in the study group, but it is not likely to provide a quantitative relationship between any such excess and radiation dose. Mr. Dunster also stressed the point that I made in July, and I would wish the House to take particular note that the survey is not, and by its nature cannot, provide evidence on individual cases. Nor is it a study for which intermediate reports are likely to be useful.
I am grateful to both the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in this debate, and for the tone in which they couched their remarks. I assure them that the Government are not trying to fob the issue off or — to use Civil Service parlance — to kick it into touch. I have attempted to give them the fullest exposition that I can of the Government's position.

Orders of the Day — Solicitors (Complaints)

Mr. Tony Blair: The Law Society is the professional body representing over 40,000 solicitors in England and Wales. It is also the body charged directly with supervising and enforcing matters of professional discipline. A member of the public aggrieved at a solicitor's conduct takes his or her case to the Law Society which has a set procedure for dealing with such complaints.
The purpose of the debate is to raise two matters. First, is that procedure working satisfactorily? Secondly, in particular, is it in the public interest for the Law Society to keep its present dual role of representing the interests of solicitors and investigating and adjudicating upon complaints made against them. Those matters have recently become the subject of serious public concern. There has been a series of newspaper articles, radio programmes, and, most recently, a full television documentary by the Granada "World in Action" team.
Persuasive testimony of the popular anxiety of the subject is provided by the flood of letters and calls received by politicians, lawyers and journalists alike who have taken up the matter. I am informed that the "World in Action" programme has been positively inundated. That correspondence has on the whole been severely critical of the present system for dealing with complaints against solicitors. To be fair, one would expect that, but whether or not that criticism is justified, I shall consider later.
It is worth recording the sense of public dissatisfaction as a matter in itself because that dissatisfaction is real. It stems, in substantial part, from the nature of the complaints system, and it is greatly assisted, like it or not, by the image of the legal profession as insular and self-interested. I want to make that clear, because public confidence in the legal profession is as much in the interests of the profession and the lawyers as of members of the public.
In initiating this debate it is no part of my intention to disparage solicitors — quite the opposite. Those who support a different system of handling complaints against solicitors number among them many solicitors who are aware of the present level of disquiet and the damage that it does to their profession.
The present system of investigating and adjudicating upon complaints against solicitors is as follows. The Law Society is charged by Act of Parliament with ensuring that solicitors obey the standards of professional behaviour of the society. The Law Society only investigates charges of professional misconduct. Negligence or incompetence falling short of misconduct are not presently within its jurisdiction. The complaint is dealt with initially by the professional purposes department of the Law Society. That is a department with full-time staff, and I understand that it has a budget of about £1 million. The professional purposes department is under the control of the professional purposes committee, a sub-committee of the Law Society council.
The professional purposes department will first assess whether the complaint is properly one of professional misconduct. If it decided that it is not, it will refuse the complaint, but may give advice to a complainant on other ways of pursuing his or her complaint. If the case is one of professional misconduct, the professional purposes

department will see whether the complaint can be resolved through an exchange of correspondence with a complainant and/or a solicitor. If not, it is referred to the professional purposes committee.
The professional purposes committee can, in varying degrees, reprimand a solicitor, attach conditions to the issue of his practising certificate, or, in serous cases, institute proceedings before the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal. That tribunal was set up by Parliament. It is independent and must have at least three members present to be quorate. One of those three must be a lay member. It has power, among other things, to order a solicitor to be struck off the rolls. But it must be emphasised that only about 1 per cent. of cases ever go beyond the professional purposes department and the professional purposes committee to the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal. The vast majority of cases, therefore, stay within the Law Society itself.
There is a further element in the process. Section 45 of the Solicitors Act 1974 set up the office of lay observer. The lay observer is appointed by the Lord Chancellor. His role is to investigate complaints about the treatment by the Law Society of complaints against solicitors. According to his 1982 report, the lay observer is involved in rather less than 3 per cent. of complaints made to the Law Society. It is crucial to note that the lay observer's function is not to inquire into the merits of the original complaint, but merely the treatment of that complaint by the Law Society. It is not a role of primary investigation, therefore, but something more akin to an ombudsman.
That is the present system—criticism of which is not new — but it has been given fresh impetus in recent months. That is, in the main, due to the case of Mr. Glanville Davies and Mr. Leslie Parsons. The Lord Chancellor is not responsible for individual cases and, in any event, the salient points are well known so I shall discuss the case only in outline. It is fantastically complex, and I shll give only an abridged version of events.
Mr. Parsons engaged Mr. Glanville Davies to act for him in an action against a public company called Mather and Platt Ltd. It was a massive and complicated case. The net result was that Mather and Platt Ltd., by way of settlement, agreed to pay to Mr. Parsons £530,000 in damages. On receipt of the money, Mr. Davies paid £430,000 to Mr. Parsons, but kept the rest on account before drawing up a proper bill. Mr. Davies had already received £48,000 on account of fees.
The case was settled on 21 May 1975. A bill from Mr. Davies was not presented until 6 April 1976. It was not itemised, and it came to £150,000, plus VAT. Despite a request to itemise the bill, that did not occur until Mr. Davies was ordered to do so by the court. Mr. Parsons had asked the court to tax his bill.
On 1 September 1977, the itemised bill was lodged with the court. It came to over £197,000. On its first taxation, the bill was cut to £98,000. That was in March 1978. Both Mr. Davies and Mr. Parsons asked for a review of that taxation. On 14 May 1979, the findings of that review were given. The bill was reduced further to £67,000, so a bill that started off at £197,000 ended up as a bill for £67,000. The taxation master described some of the items charged as fictitious and
so grossly excessive that they might have been an amusing joke had the matter not been one of such serious and direct concern to Mr. Parsons' pocket.


However, the master declined to give costs against Mr. Davies on an indemnity basis. Mr. Parsons therefore appealed to a High Court judge.
On 8 November 1982, Mr. Justice McCowan ordered that Mr. Davies should pay the costs on an indemnity basis. In the course of his judgment, he said the Mr. Davies had been
guilty, at least, of gross and persistent misconduct.
Finally, on 24 October 1983, Mr. Justice Vinelott, again at the instance of Mr. Parsons, made an order striking Mr. Davies off the rolls. He further said that Mr. Davies should pay the costs of the application to strike him off. Mr. Davies had resisted the costs order on the grounds that Mr. Parsons could have obtained an order to strike him off the from the Law Society through the Law Society's complaints procedure. Mr. Justice Vinelott rejected that argument, and said that Mr. Parsons was justified in proceding to the High Court without using the Law Society's internal machinery. He did so because, at crucial stages throughout this sorry affair, Mr. Parsons had indeed attempted to use the Law Society's own machinery to complain about Mr. Davies, only to be told, not once, but frequently, that his complaints were groundless.
Mr. Parsons' first complaints, made through a respected firm of solicitors, Bristows Cooke and Carpmael, were filed in June 1977. The Law Society asked for a synopsis of those complaints, and duly obtained it in March 1978. Included was an allegation of gross overcharging, as found by the first taxation of the Mather and Platt bill. That should in itself have been sufficient for the professional purposes committee to take action, but in November 1978, without further reference to Mr. Parsons, the professional purposes committee dismissed the complaint as "unsubstantiated".
The responsible partner at Bristows immediately went to the president of the Law Society to protest. As a result, he was told that the professional purposes committee would reconsider the matter. Bristows then sent 100 pages of documents and evidence in further support of the complaint. After a delay of several months, on 2 May 1979, the professional purposes committee wrote, saying that it was still of the view that the complaints were not substantiated.
A further related series of complaints about a legal aid bill, reduced on taxation from £16,000 to just over £3,000, was simply dismissed. There is also — again a related matter—an earlier complaint made to the Law Society about Mr. Davies' predecessor as Mr. Parsons adviser, a Mr. Malim. That complaint was received in 1977, but not proceeded with at all. No explanation of that has been given.
In summary, although a taxation master described Mr. Davies' charging as "grossly excessive", a High Court judge described him as
guilty, of at least gross and persistent misconduct
and another ordered him to be struck off, the professional purposes committee considered that no case of misconduct, gross or slight, was made out.
That is bad enough, but two essential and additional factors stand out. First, in no sense can the Davies affair be described as an error such as can happen in any organisation. It was not a one-off incident. It dragged on over six years, involving many different Law Society council members and officials within the professional purposes department.
The Law Society's own report into the matter, published on 22 February 1984, concluded:
We are of the opinion that The Law Society's treatment of Mr. Parsons' complaints both in respect of Mr. Davies and of Malim fell far short of that which he was entitled to expect and he has been seriously wronged over the handling of the complaints. The failures were many and recurring. Whilst we found nothing which casts doubt on the integrity of those concerned with the handling of those complaints we have found administrative failures, mistakes, wrong decisions, errors of judgment, failures in communication, high-handedness and insensitivity on a scale that must have done great harm to The Law Society. The whole episode is a disgrace to The Law Society. We can find few aspects of the complaint that were handled properly and the justification for that conclusion is to be found in this report.
Glanville Davies was a Law Society council member throughout the period 1977 to January 1983. He was well known and liked by those council members on the professional purposes committee. When he resigned, shortly after the McCowan judgment, he was given a eulogy by the Law Society council expressing its thanks to him as "a true friend of the Society."
The internal report of the Law Society concluded that though there was no deliberate attempt to cover up for him as a council member, his status may have unconsciously influenced the Law Society's decision. It is that camaraderie, natural in any profession, trade association or trade union, that is a prime source of concern.
A different facet of it is indicated in the case of Miss Peggy Wood. Since judgment in a court case involved with her and connected with her complaint to the Law Society is about to be given, I shall be very circumspect in what I say.
In brief, her complaint arose in these circumstances. I shall, again, greatly concertina the facts. Miss Wood asked a solicitor, Mrs. Hubbard, of Hubbards and company, to arrange a loan for her. Mrs. Hubbard arranged two sets of loans for Miss Wood, one from a company called Mobile Homes Ltd. and another from a Mr. Wills. The security was Miss Wood's property. Both Mr. Wills and Mobile Homes Ltd. were also clients of Hubbard and company. Unknown to Miss Wood, Mobile Homes was also part owned by Mr. Hubbard. At no stage was Miss Wood advised to take independent advice. She defaulted on the loans and was sued by Messrs Hubbard acting for Mobile Homes and later by that firm acting for Wills.
When Miss Wood protested that Hubbards should act for her, she was told that the others were clients of longer standing. Her complaint against Hubbards was made to the Law Society in February 1979. It was dismissed. The Law society said that it did not investigate complaints where the solicitors involved acted for a third party, which was, of course, the case with Hubbard and company after it served the writ on Miss Wood on behalf of Mobile Homes. Moreover, in the litigation of Wills and Wood, now in the Court of Appeal on appeal from the county court, the Law Society, wearing its trade union hat, so to speak, has adopted a fairly high profile.
Two issues in the appeal are whether a solicitor should act for both borrower and lender in a loan transaction and whether there is an obligation in those circumstances to recommend a client to obtain independent advice. I might add, in parentheses, that the county court judge found that such advice in Miss Wood's case would have been against her taking the loans. The Law Society, at its own expense, has instructed Queen's counsel to act for Mr. Wills in the


Court of Appeal. There is nothing wrong at all in that. It is simply representing the interests of its members. But I ask, rhetorically, how is Miss Wood, or any other member of the public, to feel confident in the Law Society's objectivity in considering her complaint when, as a professional body representing the profession, it has a keen interest in ensuring that the acts that are complained of are perfectly acceptable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Did the hon. Member say that the case was in the Court of Appeal at the moment?

Mr. Blair: That is right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been very careful——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is sub judice if it is in the Court of Appeal at the moment. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to it.

Mr. Blair: It is correct that the matter is sub judice. That is why I have been careful only to refer to those matters that are not directly represented by the appeal before the court. I have been careful to keep within the bounds of the sub judice rule.
It is the image that is at least as important as the substance. There are two basic flaws with the present system for dealing with complaints. The first is that the Law Society at one and the same time both represents and defends the professional interests of solicitors and is charged with maintaining discipline in the profession. Those two roles can lead to conflict. They certainly have the appearance of doing so. The absence of an independent element in the investigation of complaints is the single most serious cause of public concern about the way that the Law Society deals with complaints against solicitors. Indeed, it was in recognition of that feeling that the office of lay observer was instituted. I shall say in a moment why that, by itself, has not been enough to allay feeling.
Secondly, there is the absence within the investigatory process of any lay element. The impression is given of lawyers investigating lawyers. Both the lay observer and the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal involve the lay element, but the vast majority of cases are dealt with by the professional purposes committee, both in investigation and adjudication. A constant response to both those criticisms is to point to the lay observer.
Let me say why I think that response is wholly inadequate. It is not just the fact that he is involved in a tiny minority of cases, but that his function is very narrow. He has no power and insufficient resources to investigate and adjudicate on the complaint, save in so far as he needs to perform an inquiry into how the Law Society has handled the complaint. In essence, like an ombudsman, he assesses maladministration of complaints, not the complaints themselves.
That weakness was recognised by the Royal Commission on legal services, which reported in October 1979. It is worth stressing that the report attracted criticism if, from any quarter, from those who thought it too complacent and uncritical of lawyers. It is all the more disappointing, therefore, that certain of its key recommendations in respect of the Law Society's handling of complaints have not been carried out.
The Royal Commission recommended a number of things. The most important were, first, that the Law

Society should seek legislation to permit it to deal with complaints about bad professional work, as well as professional misconduct; secondly, that the Law Society should split the investigatory and adjudicatory process and that a special investigation committee, separate from the professional purposes department, should investigate, and the professional purposes committee should adjudicate only. Thirdly, it recommended that both investigation and adjudication should involve an active lay element from panels appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That it was said, would increase public confidence in the profession.
The Law Society has now said that it wishes to implement the first of those recommendations. I say in passing, as it is not strictly relevant, that I hope that when the Law Society does seek legislation allowing it to investigate "bad professional work", it uses that term in the sense in which it is used by the Royal Commission, not the lay observer. The Royal Commission defined bad professional work as including negligence that might give rise to a claim for damages. The lay observer, in his 1982 report, although he says he agrees with the Royal Commission, defines bad professional work as incompetence falling short of actually giving rise to a claim for damages. Obviously the broader definition of the Royal Commission is more desirable.
No very cogent reason has been advanced as to why the Law Society does not intend to implement the other two recommendations of the Royal Commission. In particular, it has not asked for legislation to give effect to the suggestion of an active lay element being involved. Yet, even the Government's response to the Royal Commission, given in November 1983, accepts and endorses this suggestion. Indeed, the Royal Commission's recommendations represent the bottom line of what would be appreciable reforms. Many people—myself included — believe that, sound though those recommendations are, they do not ultimately deal adequately with the root of the problem and remove from the society its dual role of trade union and disciplinary court.
Recognition of this has led the National Consumer Council to propose that the Law Society should set up an independent organisation, a solicitors' complaints bureau, to take over the role performed by the professional purposes department and the professional purposes committee. The bureau would be run by a board of Law Society nominees who would not have day-to-day control of the bureau, but rather would appoint a council with a minority of society nominees to do that. There would be a full-time staff under the control of the council. Unresolved complaints would be put to a complaints panel with a solicitor, lay representative and independent chairman. Such a bureau would not, in strict form, be independent since it would be set up by the society, but in substance it would have a large measure of independence. The same result, in a different way, is achieved by the BMA, the professional body representing doctors, and the General Medical Council.
The National Consumer Council, in making that proposal, was working within the context of the Law Society's present powers and legislation as it stands. But the society has not indicated that it wishes to seek further legislation to allow it to extend its powers of investigation and penalty. The time is thus ripe for consideration whether to include in such legislation a fully independent complaints board — in other words, to take the idea of the National Consumer Council, but to embody it in a truly


independent board staffed with solicitors and with substantial Law Society input, but ultimately accountable to lay control. One incidental consequence of this system would be to circumvent the Law Society's problems in dealing with bad professional work in connection with the provisions of indemnity insurance policies.
The counter to that proposal is that the solicitors' profession is and should be self-regulated. I see the force of that argument, although it can be taken too far. The notion of a profession being self-regulating has as much to do with the public interest as with the interests of the profession. The independence of the profession from unwarrantable state interference must be preserved. It is hard to think that a separate body to investigate complaints against the profession in the interests of ordinary citizens should fall within that category. None the less, the National Consumer Council obviously thought there was merit in allowing solicitors to remain a self-regulating profession. There can, therefore, be legitimate argument about the mechanism by which the need for some independence of the disciplinary process of the profession from the body looking after its sectional interests is achieved. It is hard to deny that there is such a need. Satisfying it would be to the benefit not just of the public but of the profession.
All professional people are subject to unjustified complaints. People who are disappointed in litigation especially look to blame others. At present, if someone complains to the Law Society and has his or her complaint dismissed, doubt will always remain that it was a case of lawyers looking after their own. Appearance can be as important as actuality. If this is recognised, something positive will have come out of the muddle of the Glanville Davies case. If not, a golden opportunity will have been lost for solicitors and the public they serve.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for raising this important issue on the procedures for handling complaints against solicitors. As the hon. Gentleman said, there has naturally been a good deal of public worry about the adequacy of those procedures in the light of the Glanville Davies case. I understand why the hon. Gentleman spent so long on a horror story in the history of the Law Society.
It is clearly in the public interest that there should be general confidence in the procedures for dealing with complaints against solicitors, and appropriate disciplinary action, and redress for the client, where circumstances require it. These are primarily matters for the Law Society, but it is right that they should be ventilated in the House because to some extent the points made range beyond the solicitors' profession. They may involve wider considerations relating to the important place of the professions in our affairs and the obligations imposed on them to regulate the conduct and standards of their members in a way that always maintains the widest possible public confidence. The hon. Gentleman carefully set out the procedure for handling complaints against solicitors. The complaints to the Law Society about solicitors may be divided into two categories. The first category comprises complaints of professional misconduct — in broad terms, conduct unbefitting a solicitor, including misuse of money. Mr. Parsons' complaints against Mr. Glanville Davies involved complaints of misconduct. The second category

comprises complaints of incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of professional work. That is a common form of complaint.
The second category would be examined by the Law Society only if the action also amounted to misconduct. In these cases, however, a client may be able to pursue a claim through the courts, and the Law Society may accordingly advise him to seek independent legal advice on his rights.
The determination of claims of negligence is naturally a matter for the courts. The Law Society has, however, made arrangements for clients to receive initially free, and independent, advice from a solicitor on a negligence panel, in cases of difficulty, on the issues of whether and how such proceedings might be brought. I emphasise that point, because often it is not sufficiently widely known. Often one hears people saying at surgeries, "It is no good my trying to sue him. I shall never get another solicitor to act for me." These arrangements, by which I mean the panel, have been widely welcomed, but they are not widely enough known. It is an initiative that was taken some time ago by the Law Society and it provides a valuable service to clients. In some cases legal aid may also be available.
The hon. Gentleman's speech dealt in some detail with the Glanville Davies case. It is not part of my duty this morning to defend the Law Society for what happened. The Law Society, particularly with the committee of inquiry of three experienced council members that it set up to investigate the matter, did not seek to cover up what had happened. The Law Society admitted its failures in dealing with those complaints. It is important to bear in mind that neither the lay observer nor the Law Society's committee of inquiry, while extremely critical of the society's performance on other counts, called into question the integrity of those concerned. The latter's report rejected any allegation that there had been a cover-up by the Law Society and acquitted it of deliberate partiality towards Davies.
Nevertheless, as I have said, the Society has acknowledged its failings in this case. It has accepted the findings of the report and acknowledged that the treatment of Mr. Parsons' complains against Mr. Davies fell far short of what he was entitled to expect. Despite the case being exceptionally heavy and complex, it should nevertheless have received correct and timely treatment. The president of the Law Society has written a letter of apology to Mr. Parsons.
The hon. Gentleman has properly pointed out some of the comments in paragraph 43 of the report of the committee of inquiry and it would be worth quoting the rest of what was set out in that paragraph because it refers to what I have just said:
We see little purpose in attaching personal blame for those matters which we criticise. The blame must attach to The Law Society for it was to The Law Society that Mr. Parsons directed his complaints. Indeed, it is the cumulative effect of the mistakes, failures and mishandling at different times, whether by the Committees concerned or in the office, that has created such a very serious situation.
The lessons are many. The Council should now relate those specific findings to the general procedures (which we have not examined) for investigating complaints. It must be ensured that criticisms of this magnitude can never again be levelled at The Society.
There is no question here of the society looking after its own. The report received a great deal of publicity and cannot be described as a report which pulls its punches.
The society is now urgently reviewing its procedures in the light of the findings of the report on its handling of the Glanville Davies case, and has promised a further announcement within two months on the action taken and to be taken in the light of the criticisms. The society has already shown its readiness to consider, as a matter of urgency, the need to increase the staff available to deal with complaints received from members of the public. The size and workload of the profession have increased significantly during the past decade. The Law Society's resources may not have expanded sufficiently to reflect that. The Law Society has also shown its willingness to consider the scope for improvement in the handling of complaints against council members, drawing on outside firms of solicitors in an attempt to avoid any imputation of bias or partiality; and other possible measures are under consideration.
I am sure that the society's response, in particular its recognition of the need to consider the action which can be taken to alleviate public anxiety and to restore confidence in the adequacy and efficiency of its procedures, will be welcomed. The Law Society acted responsibly and honourably in establishing the committee of inquiry to investigate its handling of the case and had the candour to publish the report even though it was highly critical of the society.
The society's committee of inquiry expressed concern that where disciplinary proceedings were not contemplated because of a solicitor's involvement in separate civil proceedings with his client any such disciplinary proceedings could be postponed for a considerable time. That was one of the matters that arose during the case—

whether the disciplinary procedures should be adjourned pending the decisions in the courts. The committee recommended that the general principle should be considered carefully by the professional purposes committee as a matter of urgency. I understand that that consideration is now under way.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Royal Commission on legal services recommended that the Law Society should continue to have responsibility for the operation of complaints and disciplinary procedures, but that within the Law Society the processes of investigation and adjudication of complaints should be separated and that laymen should be involved in those processes. Proposals for change have been made, as has been said, by various associations. This is not a straightforward matter, but I understand that these recommendations, including the scope for wider lay participation, are among the matters currently under active consideration by the Law Society. They have also been the subject of consultation with other interested bodies.
Therefore, I think that it is fair to say that, in the light of the Law Society's existing legislative proposals and its continuing and urgent review of other possible measures, the Government will continue to keep under review the scope for, and possible nature of, any legislation that may be brought forward. As the Government said in their response to the Royal Commission's report:
The existence, strength, and vitality of an independent legal profession, and public confidence in it, are fundamental to our freedom under the law. Responsibility for qualifications and admissions, for conduct and for discipline, properly rests with the profession.
As I have said, the Government believe that the profession, in recognition of that responsibility, is taking active steps to restore public confidence in its procedures.

Orders of the Day — Shane Paul O'Doherty

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Even at 5.22 am, I welcome the opportunity to raise the case of Shane Paul O'Doherty.
For many years, supporters of Amnesty International in Greater Manchester have asked me to write to various world Governments about political prisoners. I am sure that I, along with most hon. Members, have written on many occasions to various parts of the world to express concern about the treatment of political prisoners. I am rather concerned and often have a slight conscience about the fact that there seems to be less concern from British Members of Parliament about the treatment of British prisoners, some of whom come close to being, if not are, political prisoners. We seem to do little about that.
I shall take this opportunity to talk about one remarkable prisoner, Shane Paul O'Doherty, who is at the moment in Wakefield prison. Since 1975, I have been concerned about Shane, originally for two reasons. The first was that it seemed that he was being detained in British prisons rather than Northern Ireland prisons for a purely arbitrary reason. Second, he had renounced the use of violence and had spoken out, or, perhaps more accurately, written out, against it. He sought to write to his victims to offer apologies for what he had done. Writing to his victims was not easy. It took a great deal of time to persuade the then Home Office Minister that the Home Office should not make it impossible for him to write to his victims. It was a difficult process. There were problems in trying to contact the people, but he tried to follow it through to make sure that he expressed his apologies to those whom he had injured and harmed. He tried to make, in a small way, some amends for what he had done.
I was not alone in being concerned about Shane O'Doherty. A group of Members of Parliament, including Phillip Whitehead, the then hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, my hon. Friend who is now the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), Lord Longford and one or two others, went to see Lord Harris on several occasions to press that Shane O'Doherty should be allowed to write to his victims expressing his apologies and that he should be transferred back to Northern Ireland. With the change of Government, those of us who remained in the House went back to see Lord Belstead, who took over responsibility for the prisons, and we pressed the same case. More recently, others have been concerned about Shane O'Doherty, especially Lord Hylton.
In Northern Ireland the person who has expressed most concern about Shane most regularly over a long period has been Bishop Daly, who has done a great deal to help the family. He has also visited Shane fairly regularly and corresponded with him. At this point it may be useful to quote the words of Bishop Daly on 1 March, shortly after visiting Shane O'Doherty in Wakefield prison. He wrote:
Shane Paul O'Doherty is a young man from Derry who was convicted of sending letter bombs during 1973–74 to various prominent people in England. Since his arrest in 1975 and his subsequent conviction after an Old Bailey trial in September 1976, he has been held in various English prisons. I fully accept that his offences were very serious. I am also aware that one of his intended victims was another Catholic Bishop. He was very young and immature when these offences were committed. He

has spent a considerable portion of his nine years in prison in solitary confinement in prison punishment blocks, because he chose to study rather than do normal prison work.
I have visited Shane O'Doherty in various prisons since his conviction and I have regularly corresponded with him at considerable length over that period. I am quite convinced that he is utterly sincere in his rejection of violence to achieve political objectives. He has stated this rejection of violence publicly. In that unprecedented statement, he wrote 'I was a hypocrite. In injuring human beings, I did not cure injustices, I created new ones'. It takes a great deal of courage and humility for someone serving a long term of imprisonment to admit publicly in such strong terms that he was wrong. He admits his guilt and deeply regrets the offences he committed. After considerable obstruction, he wrote to all of his victims, who would accept letters from him, seeking their forgiveness and expressing his deep regret. I am quite convinced that he has undergone a deep and genuine religious conversion Curing his years in prison. In fact, he has monasticised his imprisonment. His letters have a remarkable quality and depth of spirituality. He has spent much of his time in prison in study and prayer. He bears no towards anyone. I can say, in all sincerity, that he is one of the most remarkable and impressive young people I have ever met or known.
In various approaches to the British Government, other responsible people and myself have failed to convince the authorities of Shane O'Doherty's change of heart. In a letter to me in March 1983, a Minister at the Home Office attempted to suggest to me that Shane 'is not a man who has fully repented of his deeds, but only of his direct involvement in them' I do not and cannot accept this assessment. I have failed in attempts to persuade the authorities to transfer him to a prison here in the North of Ireland, so that he could have regular visits from his mother.
I think that that is a sufficient quotation to illustrate the substantial claim made by Bishop Daly about the character of Paul Shane O'Doherty. Like Bishop Daly, I am appalled at the offences that Shane committed and saddened that because of the Irish troubles he caused hardship and suffering to his victims and now both he and his family have suffered for a long time. It is very unfortunate that the Irish troubles lead to this kind of situation in which young people are led into violence by the evil men of the IRA. Having said that, however, it is especially important that the British Government should prove to young people in Deny who may now be tempted to be misled in the same way that they believe firmly in justice.
My original reason for raising the question of Shane's imprisonment was to press for him to be transferred to Northern Ireland to complete his sentence, so that it would be easier for his family — especially his widowed mother, who is now about 68 years old—to visit him.
The Government are firmly committed to the view that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. If that view is to be accepted, it seems to me that prisoners should be freely transferred from England, Wales or Scotland to Northern Ireland. I believe that a few prisoners are transferred. They could be categorised as common prisoners. However, the Government seem to refuse to transfer anyone from a British prison to Northern Ireland if his offences were connected with the Irish troubles—whether he is an IRA man or a loyalist. There have been exceptions. For instance, the Price sisters were transferred —for whatever reasons—and I believe that one loyalist prisoner has been transferred.
While the Government refuse for political reasons to transfer to Northern Ireland prisoners held in British gaols, we are close to the point at which those prisoners must be considered to be political prisoners. I believe that all such prisoners should be transferred to Northern Ireland, not primarily for their own sakes but for the sake of their


families and for the benefit of the British prison system, which finds it extremely difficult to cope with IRA prisoners.
However, if there is a strong case for transferring most prisoners, there is an even stronger case for transferring Doherty and one or two others. The majority of IRA and loyalist prisoners held in British prisons committed their offences in Britain. One could say that, if they came here from Northern Ireland and deliberately chose to commit offences here, they should accept the fact that they are likely to end up in British prisons. Shane's offences were committed in Northern Ireland, as were those of one or two others. In such cases, it was an odd and arbitrary act of government to bring the men here for trial. Shane's trial began in Belfast and it seems to have been a totally arbitrary decision of government — not even a decision of the courts — that he should be transferred to Britain for the completion of the trial.
If the offences were committed in Northern Ireland, it seems to me that, in all logic, Shane ought to be a in a Northern Ireland prison. What is particularly unfortunate is that over the years Ministers have not been prepared to give in the House or outside a consistent reason for not transferring Shane and most of the other prisoners back to Northern Ireland either permanently or, if—as has been argued — there is a lack of prison facilities there, for accumulated visits, such as prisoners in other parts of the United Kingdom would be allowed.
The Government have been repeatedly lobbied on this matter and it seems that the reason why the prisoners are not transferred is that the Government firmly believe that they are special. They are not being treated like common criminals but are being treated as belonging to a political category and denied the right to be transferred to somewhere close their families.
I should have liked to be able to leave my case there and hope that the Minister would have stated that the Government were moving towards permitting Northern Ireland prisoners in Great Britain to be sent back over a period of time, and that he would have firmly stated that there is no political category of prisoners who are not eligible for transfer or for accumulated visits. I still hope that the Minister will be able to say that, and that within the reasonably near future people such as Shane will be able to go back for accumulated visits and to have the prospect of transfer.
I must now go further and press the Government, as I believe that because of Shane O'Doherty's attempts to get transferred back to Northern Ireland and a variety of other reasons, there has developed under the Minister with responsibility for prisons, Lord Elton, a regime in the Home Office that seems close to persecuting him.
For much of his time in prison, Shane has protested against the Government's refusal to allow him back to Northern Ireland and he has now brought his case before the European Court of Human Rights. In prison, Shane has always protested that he wants to go back to Northern Ireland. I believe that his protest has always been peaceful and dignified. When I have been into a variety of prisons to visit him, most of the prison officers I met clearly had a high regard for him and for the fact that he has spent so much time in prison segregation units.
Lord Elton, however, seems to have no compassion or concern for Shane. He had an extremely critical view of

him the first time that I went to make representations and I have gained the same impression from other people. Lord Elton appears not to have sympathy for the idea that Shane should be transferred back to Northern Ireland. Unlike his predecessors from both political parties, Lord Elton seems to lack any imagination of how an immature 18-year-old could get caught up with the evil men of the Provisional IRA. Lord Elton believes in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and does not want anyone in prison who has the courage or spirit to speak out about the injustices and wrongs that go on in them.
It gives me some sorrow to have to make the charge that Shane is being made a political prisoner by Lord Elton because he has spoken out about the ill-treatment of other prisoners and, more recently, has helped prisoners prepare court cases, and that is politically inconvenient for Lord Elton and the Home Secretary.
Doherty's present treatment in prison owes little to the courts, the judical process or even the somewhat tarnished system of prison rules and justice. It owes most to the political wishes of Lord Elton and the Home Secretary. To judge from the way in which Lord Elton is issuing statements attacking the behaviour that he ascribes to Shane, he seems to be pushing to the state at which he will be quite happy if foreign Governments start to protest about the political treatment of Shane O'Doherty. It would not be too bad if it was merely what Lord Elton was saying that was causing offence, but he goes much further. In an answer in another place, Lord Elton said:
in spite of the public protestations of Mr. O'Doherty, there is no convincing evidence to suggest that he has broken his links with the terrorist organisations; and he continues to refuse to comply with prison rules, which bears out my suspicions. — [Official Report House of Lords, 26 January 1983; Vol. 438, c. 255.]
Lord Elton is entitled to his view, even if he has not talked to Shane O'Doherty, but I do not think that he understands the impact that Shane's renunciation of violence is having, especially on young people in Derry. It would be far better to take the judgment of people such as Bishop Daly who have appreciated the effects of Shane's statemens and visited him throughout his time in prison. He is far better placed to judge whether Shane has had a change of heart. I am convinced, having seen him for some time, that he has had a change of heart. However, Lord Elton seems to think that there is no evidence of that, in spite of the fact that many prison officers that I have spoken to are also convinced.
Lord Elton went much further in a letter to Lord Hylton on 2 March:
You came to see me about Mr. O'Doherty on 27 July and as I explained then, I was not convinced that he had broken his links with para-military organisations, particularly since he was refusing to comply with prison rules. As you know, he was transferred to Long Lartin in March last year to give him a further chance, but since then his behaviour has considerably worsened. He has refused to work or to go on normal location and in November took part in a violent incident in the Segregation Unit in which furniture in a number of cells was damaged, and also began a 'dirty protest'. He was then transferred briefly to Birmingham for a cooling-off period, but on his return his behaviour has not improved. He renewed his 'dirty protest' and it was necessary to tranfer him temporarily to Bristol. In my view Mr. O'Doherty has been given every chance to demonstrate his good faith by co-operating with a normal prison regime but has constantly refused to do so. He cannot therefore be considered for transfer at present.
Those are fairly damning words. On 7 March I asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department


why Shane Paul O'Doherty was transferred to Wakefield prison; what regime he is under there; and for how long he is to be treated in this way.
The reply of the Under-Secretary of State, no doubt approved by Lord Elton, was:
Because of Mr. O'Doherty's increasingly disruptive and subversive behaviour at Long Lartin prison, it was necessary to transfer him permanently to another dispersal prison and Wakefield prison was considered the most suitable location. He has been at Wakefield since 14 February.
Mr. O'Doherty is segregated under prison rule 43 in the interests of good order and discipline, and the regime which he experiences is consistent with the need to keep him apart from other prisoners and with his security category.
It is not possible to say how long Mr. O'Doherty will remain under rule 43. The need for his continued segregation will be kept under review."—[Official Report, 7 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 587–8.]
It was rather unfortunate that the Under-Secretary of State had not done a little more checking up on the facts of the case and tried to find out what evidence there was that Shane O'Doherty was becoming increasingly disruptive and subversive while he was at Long Lartin. Perhaps the Minister of State—although there is no civil servant in the Box—would now read to the House a list of the things that Shane O'Doherty has been charged with under the prison rules since he was in Long Lartin in March last year. Perhaps he can produce a list of his convictions under prison rules while Mr. O'Doherty was at Wormwood Scrubs, Gartree, Long Lartin, Winson Green and Bristol prisons. Then the House could judge whether there was real evidence of O'Doherty's increasingly subversive behaviour. I suggest that the facts of the case do not show that.
Will the Minister of State tell me, for instance, whether any charge was brought against Mr. O'Doherty for the so-called dirty protest? Was he punished for that? As I understand it, the prison officers in those prisons withdrew any complaint or charge. When the Minister has read out the list of offences that Shane is supposed to have committed during the past 12 months, will he compare it with some of the things that I would not have believed were subversive, but which appear to have coloured the Minister's attitude? Perhaps he will examine the fact that in July 1983 Shane O'Doherty made a very strong protest to me, other hon. Members, his solicitor and various other people about the assault on a black prisoner, Trevor Smith, by a small group of staff in Long Lartin segregation unit.
A detailed complaint was made on 12 July about this incident within the prison system, and it was also brought to the attention of many people. If that is what the Minister says is subversive, that title can be put on Shane O'Doherty. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what happened on 4 November. I understand that there was a serious confrontation in the segregation unit between all inmates and the duty governor over the case of Edward Finlay and his right to have access to a commissioner of oaths with a test case, with which Shane O'Doherty had helped him. The case was against the Home Secretary over his arbitrary changing of the parole rules.
Shane O'Doherty was the prisoner who was brought out of his prison cell by the deputy governor and asked to talk to Finlay to persuade him to come out of the strip cell and put on his clothes. It was to Shane O'Doherty that the assistant governor, a Mr. Wall, came to later in the night to ask him to help the authorities to get Finlay to remove the barricades from his cell door and allow the assistant governor to get in. It was Shane O'Doherty whom the

assistant governor persuaded to give a phone number so that a solicitor could be got for Finlay. The solicitor was rung up so that some progress could be made and the court case could be got going to try to demonstrate that what the Home Secretary had said at the Tory party conference about the changes in the parole rules was illegal.
Throughout that period, Shane O'Doherty was used by the prison officers in Long Lartin to stop the prisoners from breaking up their cells. One might say that it is subversive for a prisoner to give prisoners advice that instead of breaking up their cells they should use the legal process to challenge an arbitrary decision by the Home Secretary. The Government have to face up to the difficult question of whether they are now calling Shane O'Doherty subversive because he dared to challenge the Home Secretary about parole or whether they have clear evidence of acts that anybody other than the Government, with their political view, would be able to suggest were subversive.
I return to what happened on 18 November, when a prisoner, a Mr. Thomas, was beaten up in full view of the segregation unit and a protest developed. If prisoners witness such things and try to make protests through the normal channels, and if the prison authorities refuse to listen to their complaints, prisoners have no alternative but to take other action. As I understand it, all the complaints against Shane O'Doherty relate to such incidents, in which, according not only to his own accounts but those of prison officers, he acted to try to maintain order in the prison rather than disrupt it.
However, having been sent to Winson Green for a cooling-off period, he was returned to the segregation unit at Long Lartin. He among all the prisoners was discriminated against because although he was not allowed a toilet in his cell the cells in the segregation unit with toilets were not all full. If the Minister looks into the allegation that Shane O'Doherty was involved in a dirty protest, he will find that it was the fact that he was not allowed out of his cell, but had no toilet in it, that led to such allegations.
Shane O'Doherty has been trying to bring his case before the European Court of Human Rights in relation to his right to be transferred to Northern Ireland. To do that, he needs access to his solicitor and to be left in one place to prepare his case. But during the last 12 months he has been moved from Gartree to Long Lartin, to Winson Green, then to Bristol, and while there and having arranged for his solicitor to visit him and to proceed with the preparation of his case, he was moved to Wakefield. It seems that the Government are getting close to becoming in contempt of the European Court in that they have been making it harder for Shane to prepare his case and make his representations.
As part of Shane's case is that the Government are failing to allow him to have the normal visits and opportunities for his family to visit him, it is clear that serious considerations are at stake. The Government's behaviour has not been helpful, and Lord Elton has apologised for the treatment that Shane's mother received in August when she tried to visit him in Long Lartin. Therefore, rather than being able to establish their claim that Shane is becoming increasingly disruptive, the Government must consider whether their treatment has perhaps provoked action on certain occasions. It is clear that they must look carefully at the whole history of this case.
One of Shane's offences in the eyes of the Government seems to be that he has persuaded too many Members of Parliament and people in the media to become interested in his case. He has consistently helped other prisoners, and recently he has been talking to people, when he has had the opportunity to do so, about the type of prison regime at Long Lartin, where, it appears, the prison authorities have encouraged the use of drugs among prisoners. I realise that it is difficult to avoid drugs being smuggled into prison, but it seems that the regime that has been allowed to develop at Long Lartin is very different from that at other prisons.
Will the Minister explain why Shane has been sent to Wakefield? Is it because he has been helping other prisoners to try to get justice? What type of regime will he experience at Wakefield? Is it a coincidence that he has been put in the old control unit at Wakefield? Or is that unit being reopened? Assurances were given in the Williams case in 1980 that the control unit would not be reopened, and Mr. Justice Tudor Evans said in that case that it would be hypothetical for him to make a judgment about the control unit because he was convinced that it would never be reinstigated.
What are the conditions of the four people who are now housed in the old control unit? To whom are they allowed to talk? Are they not allowed to speak to anybody other than prison officers? Why should not Shane O'Doherty be allowed to communicate with other prisoners? Is it because the Home Office fear that he might offer them advice on how to go about getting injustices rectified legally, rather than using the traditional means, to which prisoners have resorted, of causing disruption? We must be told what type of regime he is supposed to be experiencing at Wakefield.
The Minister can answer those questions only if he knows the position. I would not accuse a Minister of lying to the House, but I found a parliamentary answer that I received earlier today rather misleading. I asked the Home Secretary how many times since his arrival at Wakefield prison Shane had been fined or had his money reduced as a penalty for talking, and what sections of the prison rules made it an offence for prisoners to talk. The Minister replied that talking was not an offence under prison rules. He explained that since his arrival at Wakefield prison, Mr. O'Doherty has on one occasion been found guilty of an offence under rule 47(18) of disobeying a lawful order when he refused to stop shouting. He was awarded 50p stoppage of earnings. That was not accurate. When I visited Shane O'Doherty last Monday, he had been fined 50p once and he was about to be taken up for a further offence, for which he was subsequently fined 70p.
When I was in the prison I raised with the assistant governor whether O'Doherty was allowed to talk. We discussed the matter for some time. There was no question of him being penalised for shouting. It was made clear to me by the assistant governor that it was talking that was being described. The claim of the assistant governor to justify why O'Doherty was being punished for talking was that it was late at night and that it might have stopped other prisoners from going to sleep.
If the assistant governor had believed last Monday that the offence was shouting, it seems odd that he did not explain to me that it was shouting. It would be far easier to justify action being taken against a prisoner who had

been shouting rather than talking. The assistant governor made it clear that the crucial factor was the time at night at which the talking took place.
It is my information that Shane was not involved in shouting. However, I can understand the difficulty for the prison authorities. As the prison rules specifically say that no one can be fined for talking, it is necessary to find some way of justifying the fact that Shane has been fined 50p and 70p. To those outside prison those sums do not seem very large, but the imposition of the fines will make a considerable difference to Shane's opportunity to write.
The Minister's second answer to me was slightly more promising. I asked him about the opportunities that Shane had had to attend mass. This is an issue that concerned Bishop Daly. I have been told that since Shane has been at Wakefield he has been allowed to attend mass only once. However, arrangements are being made to put his attendance on a weekly basis. It is rather unfortunate that representations have to be made by various people so that a prisoner, who is obviously a devout Catholic, can acquire the right to attend mass.
It seems that Shane O'Doherty is now in Wakefield prison because Lord Elton says that he is becoming increasingly disruptive and subversive. All that I can find to establish that view is his objection to a black prisoner being beaten up in Long Lartin in June. Further, he helped Edward Finlay in November to start his case against the Home Secretary for arbitrarily changing the parole rules. The rule changes appeared to be a political act to curry favour with the Tory party conference. He objected, along with others to Thomas, a black prisoner, being beaten up at Long Lartin on 18 November. He has tried to tell Members and others what is happening in our prisons. He has a case going to the European Court of Human Rights for the right to be moved to Northern Ireland.
I ask the Minister to read out all the offences for which Shane O'Doherty has received punishment in prison so that he can substantiate Lord Elton's charge that he is becoming increasingly disruptive and subversive. Why cannot he be transferred back to Northern Ireland? I hope that he will be transferred back to Northern Ireland permanently, but, if that is not possible, I hope that at least he can enjoy accumulated visits. Moving him back to Northern Ireland and placing him with Irish prisoners would do a great deal to ease tension. It would convince others that by using normal legitimate means of raising questions they can succeed, rather than giving the impression that the only way to persuade the Government to make changes is to resort to some of the activities that took place when the Price sisters were transferred back to Northern Ireland.
I also ask the Minister to look carefully at the long-term hopes for Shane O'Doherty. When he committed this offence, and when he got involved with the IRA, he was a fairly young and impressionable individual. Although I realise that a lot of damage was done to his victims, many people who have committed the same physical violence while in their teens would be out of prison by now, having served nine or 10 years in prison. It seems that, because Shane O'Doherty's offences were connected with the IRA, he is likely to remain in prison for some time. I do not argue about that; my argument is that he cannot stay there for the rest of his life. Sooner or later, the Government will have to let him out. When they do that, I hope that they will make sure that he has used his time in prison to get


a good education, and I hope that the Government will make sure that they have not destroyed him when he has been in prison.
What are the Government doing about the units which the papers say that they are re-establishing at Wakefield, and possibly at Wandsworth? What rights do prisoners have to conversation? Are we to go back to control units, where prisoners will not be allowed to talk to each other? Is that the intention at Wakefield? Who are the four prisoners in the old control unit allowed to talk to?
Finally, if the Home Secretary is to go ahead with his proposals unilaterally to alter the parole system, he seems to be getting close to the arbitrary political behaviour that we criticise in many other countries. I hope that Shane O'Doherty will not be the first political prisoner that the Home Secretary has created—political in the sense that he is now being punished not for the crimes that he committed, but because he has objected to the injustices which appear to be imposed by the present prison regime.
I look forward to the Minister's reply and, I hope, to his assurances that no new system of control units is to be established in this country.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for giving me the opportunity to comment on this case. Mr. O'Doherty's treatment in prison and his campaign for transfer to Northern Ireland have received much publicity and attention. Some of the allegations that have been made are wholly inaccurate and —understandably, perhaps—the arguments have tended to be one-sided, so it is a good thing that, thanks to the hon. Gentleman's initiative, we can discuss Mr. O'Doherty's case in some detail. I feel all the more strongly about it, having listened to the line that the hon. Gentleman took.
The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks, and he retained the theme throughout his speech, that he was talking about people who were virtually political prisoners. Shane Paul O'Doherty was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on 10 September 1975 on 15 charges of sending an explosive substance with intent to harm, maim, disfigure or do grievous bodily harm, and 15 counts of causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on each of those 30 counts and was given a concurrent sentence of 20 years' imprisonment on one count of making an explosive substance with intent to endanger life or property. The offences related to the manufacture of 28 letter and parcel bombs and two time bombs which were posted from Northern Ireland betwen August 1973 and September 1974.
Following his conviction, his provisional placement in the highest security category — category A — was confirmed, and he was first allocated to the dispersal wing at Wormwood Scrubs, where he remained until November 1980. He spent a period of about a year in the segregation unit there, as a direct result of his refusal to wear prison clothing. He was moved to Gartree prison in November 1980 to give him the opportunity of a less restrictive regime in a more modern prison with better opportunities for association and outdoor activities.
It was also desirable for fresh assessments to be made by different staff, particularly in connection with the regular reviews of his security category. In July 1981 Mr.

O'Doherty refused to work and then repeatedly refused to return from the segregation unit to normal location—a normal wing of the prison. He remained in the segregation unit at Gartree until he was reallocated to Long Lartin in March 1983. That move gave Mr. O'Doherty the chance to show his willingness to co-operate in a new environment and to break the cycle of offence and punishment which had continued for such a long time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister list what punishment Mr. O'Doherty received under the prison rules? As I understand it, all that the Minister has described so far was his campaign to be returned to Northern Ireland. For that he has not been punished other than being left in the segregation unit, to which he did not object.

Mr. Hurd: I am coming to those specific questions, which I shall do my best to answer. I am trying to deal with the sequence of events since Mr. O'Doherty was first sentenced.
Mr. O'Doherty's reallocation to Long Lartin in March 1983 provided a chance for him to show his willingness to co-operate in a new environment, getting away from the difficulties which had arisen before. Unfortunately, that opportunity was not taken. Mr. O'Doherty repeatedly thereafter refused to return to normal location. The sad cycle of offence and punishment therefore continued.
On 18 November 1983 Mr. O'Doherty and five other prisoners damaged their cells in the segregation unit as part of a demonstration against the alleged ill-treatment of another prisoner. Mr. O'Doherty was found guilty of wilfully damaging prison property and was punished. On the following day he smeared his cell with excreta and urinated on the floor and bedding. It was decided to transfer him temporarily to a local prison under the provisions of circular instruction 10/1974 which gives governors of dispersal prisons the power to transfer a prisoner for a cooling-off period to defuse a troublesome or potentially troublesome situation. He remained at Birmingham prison until he was returned to Long Lartin on 20 December 1983.
It was suspected that Mr. O'Doherty was again attempting to cause other prisoners to misbehave and on 22 December he began another dirty protest. Therefore, it was decided to remove him, again under the provisions of circular instruction 10/1974. He was moved to Bristol prison on 23 December. His stay at Bristol was extended beyond the usual 28-day period and Mr. O'Doherty committed further offences there. A decision was taken not to return Mr. O'Doherty to Long Lartin and he was reallocated to Wakefield prison, where he arrived on 14 February 1984.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister keeps on saying that Mr. O'Doherty committed offences, but will he list those of which he was found guilty? As I understand it, he was not brought up before the present system for any of these offences, not even the offence on 18 or 19 November to which the Minister referred, and for which he was sent to Winson Green prison. The governor there made it quite clear that because of the protest about physical violence to another prisoner he would not carry out the sentence that had been passed on Shane. On no occasion was he actually punished within the prison system for the offences to which the Minister is now referring.

Mr. Hurd: I have given an instance of where O'Doherty was found guilty of wilfully damaging prison property and I have explained the basis — circular 10/1974 — on which the moves that I have been describing took place.
As soon as Mr. O'Doherty arrived at Wakefield on 14 February 1984 the governor decided that in the light of his recent behaviour he would pose an unacceptable threat to the good order and discipline of the prison if he were to be placed on normal location. Therefore, the governor decided that, under rule 43, in the interests of good order and discipline, Mr. O'Doherty should be placed in a segregation unit, where he remains to this day. I do not doubt, having studied the file, that the use of rule 43 in this case is fully justified.
Mr. O'Doherty is being treated in the same way as any other category A prisoner segregated under rule 43 in a segregation unit. Inevitably, conditions vary slightly from prison to prison, but the segregation unit at Wakefield operates in basically the same way as that at any other dispersal prison. The segregation unit at Wakefield has not for many years operated as a control unit, and does not so operate now.
Mr. O'Doherty's cell in the segregation unit has the normal segregation unit furniture of a bed, table and chair. He is visited regularly by the part-time Roman Catholic chaplain at Wakefield, and there is a degree of privacy during these visits. I understand that that means that they take place in the sight, but out of the hearing, of prison staff. He received communion last week, and mass was held in a spare cell in the segregation unit on 8 March. For security reasons, prisoners in the segregation unit are not allowed to attend the Roman Catholic chapel at Wakefield, which is in a temporary building, but arrangements have been made for mass to be held weekly in the segregation unit. I understand that Mr. O'Doherty has recently been offered work in his cell at Wakefield, but has turned down that offer.
Having looked at this matter, and having come fresh to the case, I am satisfied, from what I have seen and read, that over a period of several years Mr. O'Doherty has been given repeated opportunities to conform with normal prison regimes in different prisons, that he has not taken those opportunities, and that really he has no one to blame but himself for the fact that he is now in the segregation unit at Wakefield.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked of persecution and made what I thought was rather an absurd personal attack on my noble Friend, for which he produced no evidence. I think that the record that I have given speaks for itself. The hon. Gentleman developed what is admittedly a difficult general question, of which he has a good deal of experience, namely, the transfer of prisoners to Northern Ireland. As he knows, we consider applications from all prisoners, including those convicted of terrorist offences, on their merits, and he gave examples.
Among the factors that we have to take into account is whether the prisoner can be relied upon to co-operate with a normal prison regime on transfer. That seems to me a reasonable consideration. We also have to consider the nature of the offence which the prisoner has committed, since obviously there can be considerations of public policy in the case of those convicted of particularly horrific crimes.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have considered Mr. O'Doherty's case very carefully and repeatedly, and there is no question of prejudice against him. There is no doubt — and the hon. Gentleman did not contest this — that Mr. O'Doherty was convicted of a large number of very serious offences. I am aware that many people whose opinions we respect have argued that Mr. O'Doherty has broken his links with terrorist organisations and renounced the use of violence to achieve political objectives. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we do not find the evidence that he has broken his links with the IRA convincing. Moreover, he continues to refuse to comply with prison rules and has recently been involved in disturbance and dirty protest. It really is difficult for anyone coming fresh to this case and reading it to be convinced that Mr. O'Doherty would conform to the prison regime of another Administration, when he clearly, and over a long period of time, has refused to do so in this country.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The one point about which Mr. O'Doherty protested while at Wormwood Scrubs and all the other prisons is the right to be transferred to Northern Ireland. That is the only area in which he has objected to the prison rules. The one incident that happened at Long Lartin seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable protest by prisoners who saw violence being offered to another prisoner. With that one exception, all his protests have been about wanting to be transferred to Northern Ireland to make visiting easier, particularly for his mother and for his other relatives. It seems to me that that was a perfectly legitimate thing. Each time I have visited him and seen prison officers, they have all accepted that that was a legitimate part of his behaviour, and that it in no way indicated that he was going to be subversive or disruptive in a general way.

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that it is for me to analyse Mr. O'Doherty's motives. If those are his motives, they are producing, predictably, exactly the opposite result to that which he intends. I hope that that will be understood. Apart from the connections with terrorism, it is not reasonable to expect the Government to agree to the transfer to the prison regime of another Administration someone who has so clearly and over such a long period refused to conform with the prison regime that he has been under in this country.
For all these reasons, and this is not an easy matter, I regret that the transfer of Mr. O'Doherty to a prison in Northern Ireland must, at present, remain out of the question.

Orders of the Day — Middle East (Prime Minister's visit)

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: I wrote to the Leader of the House about this debate a few days ago, telling him that it would be specifically about the Prime Minister's conduct during her visit to Oman in 1981 and the subsequent developments, and that I would expect her to reply to a debate involving her personal conduct. I also said that some of the questions I would be putting were precisely those posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in his correspondence with the Prime Minister a few days ago.
The matter was sparked off by The Observer on 15 January, nearly three years after the Prime Minister visited Oman. She was there specially to lobby for a £300 million contract for the building of a new university there. In the event, the contract was won by Cementation International, a subsidiary of Trafalgar House, a known supporter of the Tory party, and a massive contributor to its funds.
Cementation International was the only company competing for the contract — itself a strange and unexplained fact. The contract was never put out to tender, as one might expect in such circumstances. Had that happened, other British firms would almost certainly have made bids. That strange and unexplained fact was made more intriguing by the presence in Oman, at the same time as his mother, of son Mark Thatcher. He had arrived privately in Abu Dhabi at the same time as his mother, and they met there. We do not know whether he was accompanied by his police protection force—a facility provided to him at considerable expense to the British taxpayer, and one of which the Prime Minister obviously approves.
More importantly, Mark Thatcher was obviously there with one objective—to make sure that he got his rake-off from the contract that his mother was winning for Cementation International. If she was "batting for Britain", as she boasted in the House on one occasion, she was also batting for her son Mark, and perhaps for her husband, too, as revelations in The Sunday Times might suggest. The right hon. Lady was acting on the principle that what was good for the Thatcher family was good for Britain. Mark was engaged in consultancy work for Cementation International and stood to make a considerable sum if his mother did her stuff. We have never found out how much. Some people have said that it could be £100,000; others have said more, some less.
Never in all our British history had the interests of the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister and her family been so well served simultaneously as in the winning of this large, juicy contract. There may have been nothing improper in the way these things happened. Everything may have been perfectly honourable and above board. If so, if there is nothing to hide, why has the Prime Minister been so resentful about the questions that have been put to her on these matters by the press, by Members of Parliament and notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney? Why has she refused to answer the perfectly proper questions put to her by The Observer on 15 January and by my right hon. Friend in his long letter dated 15 February 1984?
The questions put by The Observer were succinct and to the point and I should like to put them on the record. The first was: When the Prime Minister raised through the

Sultan of Oman the question of the university contract, did she know then that her own son had a financial interest in securing the contract for Cementation?
Secondly, did she realise that that situation posed a potential conflict of interest?
Thirdly, what advice did she seek, or what advice was she given, by her officials on this matter?
Fourthly, did she know that when her visit to Oman was planned her son was going there, too, and with the same objective in mind?
Fifthly, does she think it wise for her son to be associated with a company that benefits from British influence overseas and whose contracts may be underwritten by public funds?
Sixthly, if so, does she not think it desirable that such arrangements should be made public?
Those questions, it seems to me and to many other people, were of legitimate public interest and concern. What was the response of 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister when those questions were put to her and her Office? Nothing but a deafening silence. The right hon. Lady refused to answer one single question put in that way by The Observer. There was a resolute determination not to answer any of those questions at all.
In addition, when Cementation International was challenged as to whether Mark Thatcher was employed by the company, it denied, through Mr. James Poole, that he was. That denial was repeated a few weeks later. The Trafalgar House chairman, Mr. Nigel Broackes, refused to say anything about the matter when questioned on it.
Subsequently, on 15 February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney put a series of questions to the Prime Minister, not unlike those put by The Observer. He courteously but pointedly asked questions which need to be answered. What was the purpose of son Mark's visit to Oman? Why was it kept secret for nearly three years? Did the Prime Minister consult Mark about the contracts, and in particular the Cementation contract? Did Mark meet representatives of the Oman Government to discuss the contract? Was the Prime Minister aware of her son's financial interest in Cementation International? What agency, consultancy or other financial arrangement with Cementation or any of its associated firms did her son enjoy? Again, those were reasonable questions. The Prime Minister's reply, to quite a lengthy letter was a brief and haughty evasion of all the questions put to her.
My right hon. Friend put two further questions to the Prime Minister, which were answered in written form in the House and published on 29 February. Those questions asked the Prime Minister:
(1) on what date in 1981 she first learned of Cementation's interest in the Oman university contract;
(2) on what date she first learned of Mr. Mark Thatcher's financial interest in the Cementation negotiation for the Oman contract.—[Official Report, 29 February 1983; Vol. 55, c. 218.]
Yet again, the Prime Minister refused to give specific answers.
Subsquently, The Sunday Times dug up some further interesting facts—that Mark's loot was being paid into a Barclay's bank account of which his father, Denis, was cosignatory. The explanation for that, as the Prime Minister was at pains to point out to the House, may be simple —that dad wanted to keep an eye on a difficult son's multifarious dabblings in the financial world, or, as The Sunday Times said:


The less charitable see the possibility that Mrs. Thatcher's husband — as well as her son — stood to benefit from her 'batting for Britain' in Oman.
Those interpretations will be made, and suspicions will be heightened as long as the Prime Minister refuses to tell the whole truth. As The Sunday Times editorial said:
It is this silly silence which has allowed the Mark Thatcher saga to develop in such damaging dribs and drabs, when a full disclosure of all relevant information at the start could have killed the story stone dead.
It is perhaps because the story could not be killed stone dead that the Prime Minister refused to answer the questions.
The current edition of The Economist said:
It is hard to doubt … that she, the Prime Minister, knew of her son's involvement in the Cementation bid. Yet, given it was the only British company concerned, she might very reasonably have concluded that the interests of Britain and of the Thatcher family were, as usual, blessedly as one … Her anger over the affair is rooted in her disbelief that anybody could think she might be swayed by family considerations in her conduct of public business.
That same piece in The Economist concluded:
In most countries, the unavoidable leg-up she (the Prime Minister) gave her son in Oman would arouse little public interest. Britain, as Mrs. Thatcher ought to know, is different. Her error has not been her conduct in Oman but her inability to see that a full answer to every question, however apparently intrusive, was the only way to quell the storm.
Over the weeks and months the Prime Minister has stubbornly refused to answer the questions that have been put to her by various hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Prime Minister may feel reinforced in her posture by the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests which was improperly leaked to The Times last Saturday—no doubt by one of her party. The Chairman of the Select Committee improperly prejudged the report before the evidence was taken and before the Committee had prepared its report. The Committee's terms of reference are such that it could not make a worthwhile comment on the matter. I suggest that an ad hoc committee——

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I clarify the position for my hon. Friend? The Select Committee on Members' Interests has not as yet concluded its examination, although the press has been led to believe that it has. It still has further submissions to take.

Mr. Hamilton: I am interested to hear that. The matter had plainly been prematurely leaked, and from its terms in The Times last Saturday it was leaked by a Government supporter on the Committee.
In view of the Prime Minister's cavalier attitude to this and other matters involving the House and her accountability here, the time is now ripe for an ad hoc Select Committee to probe and cross-examine the Prime Minister in depth and at length about that specific matter. I would go further. The seeming development of the office of Prime Minister into a kind of presidential set-up may mean that now is the time to examine the desirability of a full-time Select Committee to examine the Prime Minister specifically and alone on matters of critical national importance.
If one looks at the Prime Minister's record since the election in June last year, one sees that she has made speeches in the House on rare occasions. Her Question

Time of a quarter of an hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays is virtually a farce and a waste of time. There is no means, therefore, by which the House can get at the Prime Minister and question her in depth in the way that we have a right to expect. Only by that means have the House and the country a chance, however remote, of ascertaining the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this rather squalid episode.
I shall quote what The Observer said in its editorial of 29 January. It quoted the Daily Telegraph, a Tory newspaper:
As the Daily Telegraph remarked last week: 'When public figures take refuge in their rights of privacy one is normally entitled to be a little suspicious … [Mrs. Thatcher's] protective feeling for her children can be well understood, yet their actions, especially here in the case of Mark, can never be beyond the scope of public interest.'
A lack of frankness is not something of which this Prime Minister is normally accused. Apart from all the other considerations, her own political style and character surely require her to abandon this present unconvincing posture that it can all be kept within the family.
This is one of the most squalid episodes in our history that I can recall in quite a long period in the House. It will continue to be raised in the House by us, and no doubt by the press outside the House. More revelations will come out in due course. We intend to pursue the matter until we get the answers to the questions that have been legitimately posed inside and outside the House.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies, in that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has chosen to make his squalid attack against the Prime Minister rather than his usual target, the Royal Family. The word "squalid", which the hon. Gentleman applies, could with the greatest consistency be applied to his own personal attacks over so many years, of which the House is well aware.
One aspect of the matter has not been drawn to the attention of the House before, so far as I am aware. This is the appropriate occasion to do so. I refer to the first report from the Select Committee on Industry and Trade, in Session 1982–83, which was released on 3 March last year. Although the principal focus of the report was southeast Asia, much of the evidence was about Britain's commercial activities in the near east. The particular problem was encapsulated in evidence given, on which the Committee comments in paragraph 52. I am glad that the hon. Member for Fife, Central has returned. The Select Committee states:
We accept what the Minister for Trade said: 'if more than one company is fielded it prejudices the chances of a British company securing the order'. We also accept that for Government there is a considerable difficulty in any suggestion of discrimination …
One of our witnesses also said to us that 'although UK manufacturers or contractors may not relish the idea of cooperating with their competitors in this country, at times we see large contracts being awarded to a consortium of contractors in a foreign country against bids made by two or three UK firms in competition with one another'. We believe that the British Overseas Trade Board, Ministers and the Overseas Projects Board should use their influence to the maximum extent to bring this message home to major British Companies, and to prevent their cutting each others' throats, whether they operate in South East Asia, Hong Kong or anywhere else overseas.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not our case.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I know that the hon. Gentleman finds this unanimous report of the all-party Committee distasteful because it does not suit the squalid case that he wishes to make.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, this is a debate of limited duration, so I shall continue. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker if you are so minded.
The gravamen of the Omani contract is that the British companies had not learnt the lesson over the years that if they did do as their overseas competitors did and form a consortium they would make it very difficult for the Government of the day, of whichever political complexion, to give full support to the British bid without inviting accusations of partiality in favour of one firm and against another. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will contain himself instead of trying to interrupt from a sedentary position, because the squalid attack on the Prime Minister is being answered. I know that he finds that distasteful because he cannot face the truth, but the truth is going to be told whether he likes it or not.
On this occasion there was one consortium which constituted the British bid. Even the hon. Member for Fife, Central did not say that the Prime Minister or any other member of the Government should not have given full support to that British bid, because to do so would have been to let the cat out of the bag and to say that once again Britain's bid should fail for lack of Government support. The hon. Gentleman did not dare cross that Rubicon, and nor have Labour Front Bench spokesmen when challenged on that point in their equally squalid attacks on the Prime Minister. Had the British consortium failed to win in this a case due to lack of ministerial support, I do not doubt that the Opposition, as well as Conservative Members, would have been critical, as we have been under successive Governments when British Ministers have not made the same supportive efforts when in a position to do as have been made by their French, German, Dutch and Japanese competitors.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman seeks to make his contribution from a sedentary position. If he wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may do so later in the time that remains.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wish to ask a question.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman ought to know the rules of the House by now. I know that the hon. Member for Workington does not like taking his medicine, but he will have to do so.
The report of the Select Committee did not, I regret to say, receive the publicity that it deserved. There was an important message which ran through the whole of that important report. That message was that, in the case of such enormous overseas opportunities, there should be only one major bid and that that bid should have the full support of the British Government. There could not be fuller support than that of the Prime Minister herself, and when she was invited to go to that country it would have

been a dereliction of her duty if she had not done everything in her power to ensure that Britain won that competition. There can be no question of partiality or discrimination when there is only one British consortium. That is the essence of the truth which those who attack the Prime Minister have so often overlooked.
On the question of interest, Mr. Speaker made the position amply clear in his statement on 30 January, which will bear repeating. He said:
Last Thursday, in response to requests from hon. Members, I undertook to give further consideration to the question of Members' interests. There are three matters which it would be helpful for me to make clear to the House.
The first relates to the declaration of the interests of Members' children in the Register of Members' Interests. In the introduction to the last published register, the registrar states that members are not required to disclose 'the interests of spouses or children, except in certain circumstances relating to shareholdings'. The rule about registering shareholdings is confined to the holdings of infant children. There is, therefore, no interest to register in the case referred to by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The second matter concerns the declaration of interests in the House. I reaffirm what I said last Thursday. It is contrary to our practice for interests to be declared during questions and answers.
Finally, I remind the House that the events to which reference was made on Thursday took place in 1981. I am not aware that anything has taken place in the present Parliament which is contrary to the rules of the House governing direct declarations of interests. Those rules have not changed between the last Parliament and the present one. Comment on what took place in a previous Parliament is not a matter for the Chair." —[Official Report, 30 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 24.]
The hon. Member for Fife, Central has asked what advice the Prime Minister was given by her officials.
I have been in the House for nearly 24 years, and during the whole of that time it has been the accepted doctrine that Ministers should never reveal what advice they are given by civil servants, and that Select Committees — which have power to send for persons, papers and records—should never press questions to civil servants about the advice which they have given to Ministers. That doctrine was upheld by a Labour Government during the inquiry by the preceding Select Committee into the Chrysler rescue operation. That Committee wished to do two things. It wished to question a Minister, Mr. Harold Lever, and the Prime Minister of the day refused to allow him to appear before the Select Committee on the grounds that it had the right to decide which Ministers, if any, appeared before the Select Committee. Civil servants rightly refused to reveal to the Committee what advice they had given Ministers. That was accepted by the Committee because that practice was wholly in accordance with the rules that have governed the House for longer than I care to mention. There is no novelty in the proposition that Ministers should not reveal what advice they have been given by civil servants and that civil servants should not reveal the advice that they have given. The reason for that is obvious—civil servants are not able to defend themselves if they are criticised for their advice and Ministers are responsible for whose advice they seek and whether they take it. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Fife, Central, who has some experience of Select Committees, should have repeated that question from a newspaper, although he knows as well as I do what the rules are concerning the questioning of civil servants about the advice that they have given Ministers and the reasons for the rules.
The squalid attack, in line with those that the hon. Member for Fife, Central and some of his hon. Friends have made for so long against their chosen targets, falls


back into its proper place as a squalid personal attack on the Prime Minister, but does not dare criticise her for what she did—backing the only British bid for an enormous contract that will bring significant employment and revenue to Britain.

Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for the helpful research that he has done. We shall read the report with special interest as he has almost made our case for us.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. Gentleman should have done that before.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has just chastised others for intervening from a sedentary position. He has only just resumed his seat. I trust that he will extend to me the courtesy that I extended to him. I did not interrupt him when he showed that he did not want interventions in his speech.
The hon. Gentleman made two points, the essence of which was that a British company should have co-operated in a consortium and learnt the lesson spelt out in the document. The reality is that it was not a consortium; it was within the Trafalgar House empire. Even the design work is being done by a subsidiary of Trafalgar House, and, far from the negotiations being open, they were conducted furtively and secretively. I shall demostrate that by referring to what the Government said in guidance to others who might have been interested in the contract.
It is understandable that, on an issue such as this, the debate could become heated. Like most hon. Members, I would prefer that the debate were not taking place. The Leader of the House and I have fought our politics across the Floor of the House for many years. I am sure that he also does not like personalised politics. I would not be involved in this debate if I felt that this was a purely personal campaign. I am here only because I believe that a series of questions about ministerial responsibilities need to be answered. I should not be here if the Prime Minister had given straightforward answers to straightforward questions. Had she given such answers earlier, many of the suspicions that are based on the festering doubts that have been created by unanswered questions might never have arisen. It would have been better for politics if those circumstances had not been allowed to develop. However, the Prime Minister allowed them to develop.
It is important to understand what we are talking about. The hon. Member for Tiverton spent considerable time talking about the register of Members' interests. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), I am talking not about the register but about the rules governing ministerial conduct. They must be stricter, because of the special position of Ministers, because of their patronage, and because they have access to confidential information.
A clear conflict of interest emerges if we systematically, and I hope unemotionally, follow the development of the Oman contract. Before I do that, I should establish what the conflict of interest rules require. Prime Minister Asquith said:
No Minister is justified under any circumstances in using official information, information that has come to him as a Minister for his own private profit or for that of his friends.

That was updated by Churchill when he was Prime Minister in an especially relevant form:
It is a principle of public life that Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interest and their public duties.
On the basis of the evidence so far—I must include that provision, because the Prime Minister has not provided evidence that she could provide—there would appear to be a conflict between private interest and public duty.
We should fit this dispute into its context. The Financial Timesof 17 March 1982, when the contract was announced, said:
One of the largest overseas orders to be won by a single building contractor"—
Conservative Members should note that—
has been awarded to Cementation International, part of the Trafalgar House group.
We are talking about an unusually large contract anyway in this sector.
We should also bear in mind that Cementation is not inexperienced in activities in Oman. It had carried out the infrastructure programme for the extension of the capital city — the Greater Muttrah project — and been involved in the substantial Medina Qaboos executive housing project near the airport in conjunction with Taylor Woodrow, which said to the press that it would have liked to bid for this contract, but Cementation had a substantial track record. It was not new to this market. For some years it had enjoyed the services of two well-known operators, one a Libyan and the other a Lebanese, whose names I have, and they also had good local connections, includng two brothers, one of whom was the ex-Foreign Minister — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) seems to find this funny. Will he treat it as a serious matter? New as he is to the House, he should understand—

Mr. Tony Baldry: Spare the cant.

Mr. Williams: I shall not spare the hon. Gentleman. If he choses to sneer and shout from a sedentary position, when he seems to have nothing constructive to say, I am entitled to attack him for his frivolity and irrelevance.

Mr. Baldry: rose—

Mr. Williams: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he did not have the courtesy even to try to intervene previously in the normal way.
Cementation had a proven track record and employed known operators well versed in the ways of establishing middle east contacts, and with high-level contacts in the country.
What, one asks, does Mark Thatcher have to offer a company that already has those connections? What did his Monteagle marketing company, a company with no office and an ex-directory phone number, have to offer that was attractive and necessary to Cementation? In the Sunday People on 12 February 1984, a Cementation executive said that the company paid and used Mark Thatcher because he is the Prime Minister's son. That is important. [Interruption.] I shall come to that point later. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is excited by my argument, and I intend to develop it fully as I progress.
Here was a Cementation executive saying that the attraction of Mark Thatcher to that company was not commercial know-how or his expertise in Oman — he probably had to look it up on the map before he went there


—but the fact that he is the Prime Minister's son. To put all this into context, I point out that this interest in him as the Prime Minister's son was only in relation to a contract in the middle east where there is a ready acceptance that helping families and friends is legitimate to an extent that would raise eyebrows and questions in western Europe.
Professor Dworkin, professor of jurisprudence at Oxford university, in The Observer on 26 February said:
Is it inconceivable that some foreign officials would think themselves to have done a favour for a head of state by advancing a relative's career, a favour that might, in some wholly unpredictable way, be returned later?
We understand that that is the way in the middle east. We have had discussions about this in the House, and we all know that the business ethics there are different. We understand that companies have to behave rather differently when they are pursuing contracts in the middle east. That would suggest that Ministers should be particularly cautious about the way in which they conduct their affairs when contracts in the middle east are involved. What I have described — family preference and the giving of contracts on a basis that would be regarded as dubious or unethical in Europe—is a fact of middle eastern life of which the Prime Minister should have been aware and of which Cementation, a well-established practitioner in the middle east, would certainly be aware.
The Prime Minister should tell the House whether any of her officials in the Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, or even at No. 10, registered any warning or complaint about the presence of Mark at the time that she was making her representations in Oman. I accept her statement that she was batting on a purely British brief, but had she received any warning that there was a danger in Mark's presence?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: With regard to my right hon.
Friend's point about Omani practice, is it not clear that the Omanis believed that they were helping our Prime Minister's family on the contract because her son was in the palace garden at the time that she was discussing the contract with the Sultan? Furthermore, the Omani authorities knew that he had a pecuniary interest in that contract and that he had been accompanied to Oman by a Mr. Jamil Amyuni, who is the middle east director of Cementation. Within their perceptions of what business people did, is it not clear that they believed that there was a direct family interest?

Mr. Williams: If the facts are as my hon. Friend describes them, the situation is far worse. It is another reason why the Prime Minister should come to the House and make a proper statement.
The right hon. Lady was out there with her husband and daughter, her daughter acting as her PA. I was told in a parliamentary answer that the Prime Minister paid her daughter's fare. Her daughter and husband were there as part of the official group, and I am not making anything of that. I am distinguishing between their role and that of Mark Thatcher, who was not there as part of the official group. He was not, so far as we know, carrying out any duties in relation to the Prime Minister's office, as his sister was doing. He even travelled separately.
The Prime Minister insists that she argued the case not of Cementation but only of the contract coming to Britain. The intervention of the hon. Member for Tiverton, in which he said that the Government preferred single-bid

contracts, worsens even that claim on her part, but I do not want to pursue that.
Did the right hon. Lady know that her son Mark, through Monteagle Marketing, was in Oman representing Cementation? Did she know that before she went to Oman? If so, why did she not ban him from going there or refuse him any contact with the official party? Alternatively, if she did not find out until she arrived in Oman, why did she not send him home, or at least ensure that he had no contact with the official party?
It is a possibility that he did not tell her. But it is almost beyond the realms of credibility that a mother meeting her son in the middle east—not just bumping into him in the high street in Brighton—would not ask him what he was doing in Oman and Abu Dhabi. It is conceivable that she did not ask or that he did not tell her. The right hon. Lady has implied that she was not aware of Cementation's interest in the contract before it was signed.
In January, in a written answer, the right hon. Lady said:
No United Kingdom construction company had approached the Department about the project prior to the decision of the Omani Government to award a turnkey contract".— [Official Report, 19 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 273.]
On 29 February, in answer to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the Prime Minister said "there is no record" in relation to two specific questions. One was when she first learnt of Cementation's interest in the contract and the other was when she first learnt of Mark Thatcher's financial interest in the Cementation negotiations. Yet at that stage she said that there was no record.
The Prime Minister's visit was in April 1981. The Observer, on 15 January, alleged:
In May 1981, almost as soon as the Prime Minister had returned to London, Morgan Grenfell applied to ECGD for credit guarantees in the expectation that Cementation would be awarded the contract.
It is not illegitimate to ask whether that allegation is true or false. If it is false, that disposes of it, but it was within a month of the Prime Minister having been in Oman.
On 11 May—I ask the Minister to note this, because he will appreciate its relevance to what he said — the British Overseas Trade Board, through its export intelligence service — a photocopy of this is in the Library—issued notice No. 404. The board was telling potential bidders for the Oman contract in May 1981, a few weeks after the visit:
It is understood that an architect's brief is to be prepared within the ministry"—
that is the Omani ministry—
by December in preparation for design tenders being called in early 1982.
In May, in advice to other potential bidders for the contract, the Government were saying that tenders would be called in early 1982. In fact, tenders were never called. In the autumn of 1981, after secret negotiations, of which, apparently, no one else was aware, the entire contract was awarded to Cementation and its subsidiary. That may explain why Taylor Woodrow never participated. The race was over before the starter had brought out his gun.
Why was there only one company? The other companies, on Government advice, were still waiting for tenders to be invited in the next year. It would be relevant for us to know whether the Prime Minister discussed the dates on which tenders were to be invited and the time span in which the contract was to be negotiated when she was in Oman.
In March 1982, the Sultan of Oman visited the United Kingdom. We understand from the press that Mark Thatcher cancelled an important engagement in a celebrity golf tournament in Spain, telling the organisers, according to The Observer of 15 January 1984:
The sultan's visit has to come first.
Apparently some nosey journalist approached Buckingham palace. A spokesman said:
Mark Thatcher seldom takes part in state visits, so there is no reason why he should do so this time.
The report of 15 January continued:
But unusually on this occasion, Mark's name was on the list of official guests at Downing street where everyone associated with the Oman contract was present.
By that stage the contract had been sewn up, but as far back as that there was a sign that the Prime Minister was, or should have been, aware of her son's involvement, and the alarm bells should have been ringing. She should have been volunteering information to the House rather than, as happened subsequently, concealing information. The entire episode has been surrounded by silence and deception.
Again, The Observer of 15 January — I emphasise that no writs have been issued on the basis of this report —stated:
In 1983 last year James Poole, a Trafalgar spokesman, said: 'Mark Thatcher is not employed by us or Cementation. I have checked and there is no record that he has worked for a fee or as a consultant.
On 14 January, the day before, a reporter checked with the company and the company confirmed that statement. Cementation's project director, Michael Slater, told The Observer:
I have no knowledge of any involvement by Mark Thatcher.
On a third occasion a spokesman from Trafalgar House said:
I am led to understand … that Cementation have no relationship with Mark Thatcher.
Yet in The Sunday Times, only a month later on 12 February 1984, Mark Thatcher agreed that he had been involved but was reluctant to discuss how much he had been paid.
On the same day the Sunday People—I shall complete the quotation that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington started, and I ask for your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker — stated that a spokesman for Cementation had admitted that the company had
used him because he is the Prime Minister's son—and why the bloody hell shouldn't we? To be able to go around with the Prime Minister's son in a country like Oman does not exactly open the doors, but it flatters people.
That was at the time of the Prime Minister's visit to a country where the influence of family relationships, as I said earlier, should have been well understood. Is any more proof required that a conflict of interest, in ministerial terms, exists with this contract? In the meantime, Cementation had lied, cheated and tried to mislead.
Meanwhile—again, as part of the general conspiracy of silence that surrounds the whole episode — Mark Thatcher told The Sunday Times on 4 March — and I understand that it has not been rebutted:
I have an understanding with the people involved that I don't say anything. I have an understanding with Mum that I'm not going to say anything.

His partner, Steve Tipping, of Monteagle Marketing Ltd., gave what the newspaper called "guidance", because he said that he did not want to break his promise to remain silent. So here we are, three years later, and the conspiracy gets tighter. An attempt is being made to draw more and more people within a cloak of silence.
The Prime Minister was not exactly helpful when hon. Members tried to question her about the circumstances. She blocked question after question by the old technique of reference back to an answer she gave on 19 February this year. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, on 16 February the right hon. Lady admitted that her son
was present at a function attended by many people including the press; there was no interest at all in his visit at the time".
That referred to his visit to Oman. She said, in effect, that there was nothing to answer, that the press knew he was there and showed no interest. Of course not, because the whole family was there, and no doubt the press made the same assumption on the same basis.
Secondly, at that time no one knew that Mark Thatcher represented a commercial interest, so again the press had no reason to be excited by his presence. Moreover, in answer to me on 20 February, the Prime Minister said,
My son was in Oman during my visit but did not attend any official functions."—[Official Report, 20 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 376.]
Could it be that the party she was talking about was the one that took place in Abu Dhabi, not Oman? According to The Observer, on 21 April a party took place in the British embassy in Abu Dhabi—which journalists were not allowed to attend, contrary to what the Prime Minister said — at which there was a brief "photo-call" for photographers, but Mark Thatcher was not present. One of the photographers, on leaving, apparently turned into the wrong corridor and bumped into Mark Thatcher. According to The Observer, that was the only indication that Mark Thatcher was even there.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I and my researcher have checked every British newspaper for the day of the Prime Minister's visit to Oman to find a reference to Mr. Mark Thatcher's presence there, and the only three people who have any relationship with the Thatcher family who are reported to be there are Carol, Mrs. Thatcher and Denis? There is no reference in any British newspaper to Mark Thatcher being in Oman.

Mr. Williams: That amplifies what I am saying—that there was this distinction. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] Hon. Members can make what they wish of my hon. Friend's intervention, but it adds to the aura of suspicion that the Prime Minister has allowed to develop.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Only in dirty minds.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who is sitting with his feet up and has just emerged from bed, had not the courtesy to be here to hear most of the evidence that I have given. I do not take kindly to interventions which are based on ignorance and lack of knowledge of what has gone before.
Last Tuesday, 6 March, the Prime Minister abused Parliament and our procedures. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central, as all hon. Members


saw, she clearly read a prepared statement. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Selly Oak will wait a moment, he will have his own opportunity to speak later.
Having refused to make a formal statement to the House, the Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box last Tuesday at Prime Minister's Question Time and read an answer to a question relating to the visit and the report in the Sunday newspaper.

Mr. Patrick Nicholas: rose——

Mr. Williams: Let me finish. The hon. Gentleman can make his point in his own time. [Interruption.] We understand that Conservative Members do not want to hear all the facts—[Interruption.] I am only too delighted for hon. Members to shout as though they were in a bear garden. If that is the way that they want to conduct their affairs, they can. I have been trying to argue the case reasonably and without emotion. Most of the heat has been caused by Conservative Members shouting from sedentary positions.
Last Tuesday the Prime Minister gave another blocking answer. Although her reply was read to the House, she did not make a formal statement which would normally have been given at least an hour in advance to the Opposition for their consideration. Such a statement would also have been subject to a period of specific questioning by hon. Members. Instead, it was slipped out in Prime Minister's questions. Therefore, a blocking position has been established without the House of Commons having the chance properly to examine the contents of and omissions from that statement.
In the past week there has been an incredible new twist. The Prime Minister's husband, who accompanied her to Oman, has been revealed as a counter-signatory of Monteagle Marketing's cheques. That may be perfectly straightforward. It is Mark's company, which mysteriously, three years after it had done its work, still has not been paid. He should talk to Cementation. Extending credit is one thing, but perhaps the company was not paid in Britain or we have not been told all the facts. One can understand that there may be a good reason for Mr. Thatcher being a counter-signatory. Mark Thatcher is legitimately frequently abroad on business. But, if the press report is correct, it is peculiar that for about a year Denis Thatcher had the right of sole signatory to the cheques, despite the fact that he is apparently neither a shareholder nor a director of the company.
That raises the question of his role. Is he, perhaps, a guarantor? More importantly, when did his role start? If the Prime Minister tells us that it started after the Oman contract, that would be the end of the issue. But if it started before the Oman contract, it adds massively and even more worryingly to the fact of Mark Thatcher's presence at the time that the contract was being discussed. We want to know at what stage he became involved, because the Prime Minister's husband, if he were involved at the time, would clearly have known of Mark's interest in the Oman contract.
I have said that there may be perfectly innocent answers to all those questions. Hon. Members have shouted and tried to intervene from sedentary positions. However, the fact of the matter is that these are legitimate questions because there is clearly a potential conflict of interest within the terms of ministerial guidance. It may be that the Prime Minister could resolve this issue, in which case it

would be dead within 24 hours. That would be the sensible course, particularly in relation to a contract which has had support from the Export Credits Guarantee Department —a contract with a country which allegedly had been due to have its aid cut and which then suddenly found that no cut was imposed. There is a public funding element in this.
It would be in everyone's interest, including that of the Prime Minister, if, as she protests—and one is willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, if only she will tell us—there is nothing involved that needs to be a matter of intense public concern. But her silence, or partial silence, and her evasion of the questions that Parliament most wants answered, is feeding the doubt and suspicion that she could resolve literally within a matter of minutes at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: There will be many around the world who will read the report of this debate with interest, and there will be many who will read it with amazement. There will even be some who will view the proceedings with sadness. But there will certainly be some who will be hanging on every word with absolute relish.
Interest will be shown by anyone for whom the state of politics, as it is now played in Great Britain, is part of the daily diet. Amazement will be shown at the fact that in helping to gain vital business for her country, against fierce international competition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is subject to this vilification and, indeed, in a word much loved by the Labour party, to harassment.
Sadness will be felt by those who see that a once great party, one that held Government as recently as five years ago, and still, we are told, has aspirations, should have sunk so low, but relish will be felt by our many overseas competitors, who will now hope that British Ministers and officials will be so busy worrying about possible parliamentary or journalistic lambasting, having to fight their battles at home as well as abroad, that they will lose the stomach for the international fray.
It is hard enough for those who serve Britain's interests in the world, struggling for markets, for jobs, for the right product at the right price, with few of the financial packages and subsidised prices that are commonplace in certain other countries, to boost their chances without having to run the gauntlet of the hypocrisy, bitterness and jealousy of those who feel that any Government-aided British success is for them an abject failure.
There are some actions by the Government and by Britain that are in all our interests—and our economic health and future is one such area of common good—but I perhaps forget that our economic strengths and, indeed, our economic system are so hated by many members of the Labour party.
The questions have been put, and the answers have been given. There is the ruling of 30 January, and there were questions throughout February and, indeed, March. There is the letter to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on 15 February from the Prime Minister, which goes straight to the central point. The Prime Minister said:
You accuse me of batting for a single firm in which a member of my own family had a direct financial interest in the outcome. You did not produce a shred of evidence to support such a serious allegation. It is quite untrue.
The letter continued:


I do not discriminate between British companies and I did not do so on this occassion. In accordance with the advice of the relevant Departments, I raised with the Oman Government the interest of Britain in playing a major role in all aspects of the new University … I did not mention Cementation or any other company.
The answers have been given. There is no deception, there is no cover-up. One cannot escape asking the one crucial question: why does the Labour party pursue this matter, when the Prime Minister has been doing her job abroad for the sake of 400 British companies and when Mr. Mark Thatcher is similarly working in Britain's interest? Imagine the furore from both sides of the House if he had been working for a company that belonged to another country. I wonder whether, in the case of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, it is not a case of running scared. We heard of his problems of re-selection. Is he scoring a few brownie points to please the far Left?
As to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Hanley: —now that his vicious barbs have been redirected away from his usual target, our royal family, now that he sees how justly loved that royal family is and how hard it works for Britain's interests around the world as well, he tries this approach because he is running scared in front of the hearts of the British public. Has the hon. Gentleman ever registered the royal family as one of his pecuniary interests?
It is all of those things that have inspired the Labour party. It is a basic sterility of ideas. The Prime Minister has said that she is batting for Britain. As for the googlies, the bouncers and the clever-clever bowling the Labour party thinks it has done, I would say that any umpire would declare not only "no ball" but that it was well wide of the mark.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already spoken in the debate——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: —on an earlier subject. I call Mr. Ivan Lawrence.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asked whether this was not one of the most squalid episodes in recent times. Is it not more appropriate to ask whether his speech was not one of the most squalid that he ever made? And is it any less squalid because right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench lend themselves to this vindictive and malicious allegation, which can only bring shame to the Labour party for raising and supporting it?
Is it also not painfully appropriate that an hon. Member who has gained widespread publicity for himself and his books by his eccentric attacks upon the royal family should be fast making himself a name as a prince among muckrakers, not only because he rakes muck but because he makes the muck that he is raking? He goes on trying to rake it, even though by so doing he is attempting to besmirch the name of a Prime Minister whose integrity is

a byword throughout the world, a national company about whose interests one would have thought that the hon. Gentleman — who pretends to be so concerned about jobs—would have some great concern, and an ally of Britain in the middle east. The hon. Gentleman also tries to besmirch Britain's good name, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has pointed out. He certainly besmirches the name of his party and himself into the bargain, because the allegation is manifestly absurd.
This is not some hitherto unheard of contract with a country with which we have never traded. Oman is a part of the world where Britain has substantial and important commercial interests and with which we have had treaty interests for well over a century. The Gulf states and Saudi Arabia took 5·5 per cent. of all Britain's exports in 1982, which means that they are probably providing something like 200,000 British jobs. A total of 15 per cent. of Britain's invisible earnings in 1982 came from the middle east and the majority of that from the Gulf. Some 50 per cent. of the United Kingdom's defence sales in 1982 were to the Gulf, and Oman is one of the few states that has voted consistently with Her Majesty's Government over the Falklands.
We have between 100,000 and 150,000 British nationals living in the Gulf area. It would have been a dereliction of duty if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had not done everything in her power to bat for Britain and to secure that contract for Britain.
For the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) to pretend, from the Opposition Front Bench, that he has established some conflict between private interest and public duty is also manifestly absurd. He said "I shall demonstrate that, far from being an open matter, it was being done furtively." He has done no such thing. He hinted at corruption in the middle east, but that is no such demonstration. He hinted that Mark is worthless and therefore must be corrupt. That is no such demonstration. He hinted that, because the Prime Minister carefully reads out an answer at the Dispatch Box there is something dishonest in that. That is no such demonstration. He hinted that the Prime Minister's behaviour in shortly, sharply and to the point denying any of the absurd allegations is some indication of dishonesty. That, also, is quite absurd.
The right hon. Gentleman is forced to accept, and he does, that he does not question that the Prime Minister batted for Britain. But that is a long way short of demonstrating any dishonesty. The answer to the question whether there was any possible hint of dishonesty was given by the Prime Minister when she said:
I did not mention Cementation or any other company.
If the Prime Minister tells us that, it is an end of the matter. For Opposition Members to go on saying that there are legitimate questions, if only the Prime Minister would answer, is ridiculous. The Prime Minister has answered, yet they go on trying to make political capital out of something that is patently absurd. The Prime Minister could not have killed this story stone dead by the answers she has given or any other answers she should give as long as Opposition Members are malevolently trying to stir up trouble for Britain and the Conservative party and the fine Prime Minister who leads the country.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked why the Prime Minister has been so angry. How can he ask that question? For years he has appeared in this Chamber either being angry or pretending anger because, as he takes it,


there has been some attack upon the nursing profession. The hon. Gentleman has, I believe, a daughter who is a nurse. His connection with his daughter has made him angry. How can he, of all hon. Members, ask how it is possible for the Prime Minister to be angry at unjustified attacks made upon a member of her family?
Why has the Prime Minister been so resentful of allegations against her? The answer is manifest. It is because the allegations are absurd and without foundation. Everyone in the House knows that if this had not been a matter that brought personal publicity to the hon. Gentleman, well known for his eccentric views, if this had not been a matter for which there is absolutely no shred of supporting evidence, or the hon. Gentleman would have raised it outside the House, and if it was not a matter of trying to secure some party political advantage, this issue would never have been pursued by the hon. Gentleman in this House.
If the hon. Gentleman had a shred of decency, he would withdraw his eccentric and bizarre allegations, and if there was a shred of decency in the Labour party it, too, would withdraw any association with such a scurrilous attack.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The subject for debate is the Prime Minister's visit to the middle east. It therefore seems astonishing — my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made this point—that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) should focus on only one personal aspect. Their sense of priorities seems not only astonishing but distorted and warped.
I wish to describe for a few minutes the value of my right hon. Friend's visit to the middle east and then to deal with the specific allegations, which are quite disgraceful, that the hon. Member has made. The point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton is most important. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to the middle east at a very important time for Britain, politically and commercially. There were a number of important issues to be dealt with. This was the first time any Prime Minister of this country had visited these countries while in office. The purpose was to discuss a range of important political issues. At that time the Gulf war had started and there was the problem of Afghanistan. There was the Arab-Israel dispute and there were many other problems that my right hon. Friend needed to discuss.
Of equal importance was the great value of commercial relations that we have with that part of the world. In 1982, 5·5 per cent. of all British exports went to the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia. According to some rule of thumb, about 200,000 British jobs depend on exports to the Gulf. Yet, not once did the hon. Member for Fife, Central attach any importance to those exports. Where is his sense of priorities? Is he interested in jobs for Britain? Is he interested in earnings for Britain? Is he interested in a

healthy balance of trade? He showed no interest in those factors, yet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pursued British interests vigorously in each of those countries.
A number of significant contracts have flowed from my right hon. Friend's visit—the National Guard hospital in Saudi Arabia with a total contract value of £120 million; the Hawk trainer aircraft for Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Kuwait valued at approximately £160 million; a major defence contract in Qatar worth approximately £70 million; and an agreement for the exploitation of the North-West Dome gasfield in Qatar. The story goes on and on. Those contracts provide jobs for Britain, and that is one of my right hon. Friend's many achievements.
We have exceedingly important ties in Oman. Last year, our exports to Oman were £450 million. having increased by 70 per cent. in the past two years. About 400 British companies, not just Cementation, have derived benefit from the Oman university project. The hon. Member for Fife, Central and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West should welcome that fact.
The Prime Minister expressed interest in British participation in all aspects of the university project, but no particular firm was mentioned at any time. Therefore, all questions about this matter being not only a public but a private interest are irrelevant because at no time did my right hon. Friend promote the interest of any particular company. It is tendentious and wrong to suggest that she did so. The fundamental point is that there is no conflict between my right hon. Friend's public and private duties, because she at no time promoted a single specific firm. She promoted Britain's interests and more jobs, in which I should have thought the hon. Member for Fife, Central was interested.
We can judge for ourselves the motives of Opposition Members, as they did not once talk about jobs for Britain. They are simply revelling in muck raking. That is not only singularly distasteful but one of the most unattractive sides of British politics. It is sad to see Opposition Members debasing themselves in that way. One of the characteristics of the British way of life, which I had hoped by now had more or less faded away, is that we seek to find fault in everything we do. Even when we are successful we seem always to moan and criticise. That seems to be almost a compulsive action of the hon. Member for Fife, Central. He can never say anything constructive. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sets herself the highest possible standards in her public life, and she is right to do so. That is widely acknowledged and she is widely respected for that.
Having listened to the debate, including the excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), my conclusion is that my right hon. Friend deserves the strongest congratulations on her visit and that those who seek to criticise her must re-examine their motives. I hope that Opposition Members, and especially the hon. Member for Fife, Central, will realise their folly and, in their own interest, wrap this matter up.

Orders of the Day — Unemployment

Mr. Dave Nellist: Yesterday at the close of trading on the Stock Exchange, the Financial Times index rose by slightly over three points. It added about £500 million to the share values. Later this afternoon that may be taken as evidence that all is well in the economy and that a mini-boom might be under way and the recession might be over. This afternoon the Chancellor may go further and express optimism at the increase in the world economy. He may even boast that inflation in Britain has fallen under a Conservative Government, and he might even stand by his prediction of a 3 per cent. growth in the British economy this year.
I wonder whether the Chancellor will repeat the boast that he made nine months ago during the general election — that unemployment will begin to fall this year. I doubt it. The budgeting that is taking place within the Department of Employment, particularly the Manpower Services Commission, for the next three years is for no significant drop in unemployment, especially long-term unemployment. I do not believe that this afternoon's Budget with its fine tuning and possibly fine words will reflect the Government's hope that unemployment will fall.
The reality is that 5 million people are seeking work at the moment. It is hard to understand the effects of unemployment and being on the dole on the families of unemployed workers unless someone has suffered unemployment. It is not someting of which to be proud, but I spent nearly three years on the dole before I entered the House. When someone is on the dole for a long time, time stretches out so that there are only two days that count in a fortnight—the day one signs on and the day that the giro arrives.
Weekends become submerged by the fact that without money there is not much opportunity to enjoy a social life. Once one has paid the bills, set aside the money for the heating or fuel and sorted out the money for the food there is nothing left for any enjoyment of life. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) was play acting at being on the dole in Newcastle. He could not last one week on one week's supplementary benefit. On the sixth of the seven days he had been offered drinks at the working men's club, and he did not have 50p for the television, the electricity or the gas. He had no food for the seventh day. That is the reality for hundreds of thousands of families and millions of unemployed workers.
Suicide rates have climbed because of unemployment. Suicide is now the second most common cause of death for those under 25. Divorce rates and other stresses and strains within the family have risen as a result of unemployment. It is estimated that at least 40 per cent. of divorces can be traced to the problems caused by lack of money and unemployment.
Research now suggests that unemployment can be linked directly to the physical stature of youngsters in their most formative years. It can be shown that children of three and four were up to one inch shorter when they were born to parents without work compared with children born to parents who are working.
Those social conditions are never mentioned in budgetary contributions. We hear the fine talk about the public sector borrowing requirement and the fine tuning

needed to produce a neutral Budget or to keep the economy on a straight and level path, but we do not hear about the social consequences of the policies followed by the Government.
In my region of the west midlands, particularly in my city of Coventry, we have much to learn from the past five years about mass unemployment. In the west midlands unemployment has gone above the national average for the first time in Britain's industrial history. We are now one of the poorest regions in the whole of the United Kingdom, a far cry from 10 or 15 years ago, when the west midlands was predominant in terms of wage rates and its contribution to manufacturing industry and other major sectors of the economy.
We have lost 358,000 jobs in the past five years. Half the unemployed in the west midlands have not worked for over one year. One in three of our households now lives on or below the official poverty line. Manufacturing industry is now at its lowest level since 1959. There is no doubt that in the Minister's reply, in other contributions, and in the Chancellor's speech we shall not hear much about the world recession and its effect on the British economy.
It should be explained how the rise in unemployment in the west midlands in the past five or six years has been three times the average rise in the world. There can be only one explanation—that while the world recession is the cause of the decline in the number of jobs and in employment, Britain in general and the west midlands have suffered higher unemployment than that throughout the rest of the world due to domestic causes. Governments, parties, bankers and industrialists have a responsibility for what has happened.
If one comes away from the casino economics of the Stock Exchange, the atmosphere of the rich and powerful, to those who have to live on the estates and under the consequences of the Government's policy — when one looks away from the comic book schemes of trying to take youngsters out of the monthly dole figures with the excuse of providing training, largely for jobs that do not exist —one finds that such is society that young workers are suffering tremendously under the Government.
In the past few weeks I have met youngsters who have come to lobby on youth unemployment. They say that they have been trained in the past couple of years and get more experience—some have been on three or four different training schemes—but they complain that they are still unemployed. That picture is reflected throughout Merseyside, in Scotland, the north and other areas.
Because of the status of the Minister who will reply, I shall reflect to some extent on youth unemployment, which is one of his responsibilities. I want to elicit from him not so much a catalogue of the amount of money that is being spent on training, the respectability of the courses, or the response that they have gained within the employers' or trade union organisations, but an explanation of when he expects unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, to be solved. Will it be in the 1980s, the 1990s, or the 21st century? What period do his Department and the Government plan for when they are training those youngsters and spending their money through the MSC? I cannot see unemployment generally, or youth unemployment in particular, being solved in the short term in a capitalist economy under a Conservative Government.
On 14 February in a written answer the Minister listed the number of vacancies at careers offices throughout the country. In Coventry there were 31 for the thousands of youngsters unemployed and the further thousands being trained with the expectation of finding a job at the end of their training. In Birmingham, the major city of the west midlands, there were about 80. In the country as a whole there were fewer than 6,000 vacancies for a third of a million school leavers. Even with the best training and by magically transforming the skills of school leavers into the highest possible calibre, where would they have the chance to use those skills?
The solution to unemployment is the provision of jobs. That is the subject that must tax the minds of those taking part in this debate. As a general yardstick to estimating how unemployment affects people in society, it is said that, if unemploymet generally rises by 50 per cent., youth unemployment will double and black youth unemployment will treble, as is clear in certain areas of London, the west midlands and Merseyside. One and a quarter million young people are on the dole and one third of a million young people have been unemployed for more than a year. The hopes of those youngsters have been destroyed by long-term unemployment.
That is not just the view of Labour Members. Surveys of young people themselves show that it is true. Just before Christmas the National Girobank's "Payday" magazine did a survey of 14 to 16-year-olds, asking how many thought that they would find a job when they finished their education. Only 16 per cent. of those about to leave school expected to find work straight away. One in six expected to wait at least a year or two and just over two-thirds expected a delay of between three months and a year. If that is the general mood of young people preparing to leave school without any prospect of employment, it is no surprise that in recent times frustration at seeing all their brothers and sisters unemployed and no prospect of employment themselves has sometimes led youngsters to challenge the situation in a most physical manner. As I have said before in relation to events in Toxteth, Brixton, Moss Side and elsewhere nearly three years ago, I do not condone the riots, but I believe that no one can now deny that unemployment is a major underlying cause. Rather than trying to increase social control at the sharp end with water cannon, plastic bullets, not equipment and the like, it behoves those who accept that explanation to recognise the underlying causes and to try to deal with unemployment itself.
In the west midlands, Coventry has suffered a tremendous decline. When I went there in the early 1970s as part of an apprenticeship, 67 per cent. of the work force was in manufacturing industry and it was reckoned to be the highest paid working-class city in Britain. Trade union membership was 75 per cent. of all those employed. Working conditions were better than the average in other cities and aspects such as the toolroom rate in the engineering industry were seen by workers throughout the country as the yardstick for their demands. They aimed for what Coventry had already achieved through trade union organisation.
Now there is 31·5 per cent. unemployment in one of the four wards that I represent. That is the highest level in any ward in the city. In my advice surgeries on Saturdays, I see that the problems are worst among those who are under 25 and among those who are at the other end of the age

spectrum—those aged over 45. Older workers, too, are beginning to become demoralised and to believe that they have no future.
Some institutions such as the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, whose members may have close contacts with Conservative Members, try to rationalise the demoralisation of the young and the old and to produce a package by means of which to eliminate it. They seek to do so not by providing jobs — not by getting youngsters off the dole and finding gainful employment for older people — but by redefining the dole.
A couple of years ago I read a report produced by one of those bodies. It suggested re-categorising the unemployment figures so that the description "unemployed" could be applied only to someone who was aged between 25 and 55 and had been unemployed fog at least six months. If those at the top of society say that one can be 10 years away from school or retirement and not count in the unemployment statistics, the young and—in some cases — the older people can begin to feel like a forgotten generation.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, accept that the report to which he refers has no connection with the official unemployment statistics.

Mr. Nellist: The suggestion for altering the statistics was made by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. The Government may not have accepted that particular suggestion, but, since that suggestion was made, there have been changes in the way in which statistics are presented. The definition of unemployment has been changed. According to the Government's monthly figures which we see on television, about 3 million people are on the dole. However, nearly 5 million people are seeking work. Now, it is those who receive supplementary benefit who are counted rather than those who sign on at the jobcentres.
Male workers over the age of 60 are encouraged to consider themselves as prematurely retired rather than unemployed. The 16 and 17-year-olds on training schemes are not counted now, and a third of a million of them have disappeared from the unemployment figures in the past two or three years. Women who were in part-time employment and who, because they were not paying the full national insurance stamp, are not entitled to receive full benefits are not counted now either at the DHSS offices. Under the present Government, unemployment has been redefined in various ways. Even if the suggestion made by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has not yet been adopted, many other suggestions have been put into practice.
Talking to the workers in my area from day to day, I realise that generation has been set against generation. Older workers criticise the youth training scheme and the fact that, once a man has passed the age of 45 or 50, there is nothing to help him find a proper job again.
I believe that I have listened to every debate in which unemployment has been mentioned since last June. In that time, one solution to the problem of youth unemployment has shone out from the speeches of Conservative Members. The problem, they say, is not that there are too few jobs but that young workers have priced themselves out of jobs. I think that the Secretary of State for Trade and


Industry, then the Secretary of State for Employment, said that the solution to youth unemployment lay in their pricing themselves back into work. I ask the Minister, without going through some of the cases that have been raised in recent debates about research paper No. 42 from the Department of Employment and its findings on the so-called correlation between youth wages and youth unemployment, to explain how low youth wages must go before young workers, as a section of a class in society, can achieve full employment.
Apparently six out of 10 people under 18 are on an average wage of slightly less than £60 a week and four out of 10 are on an average wage of slightly less than £40 a week. How low must those average wages go before similarly aged unemployed youngsters receive some form of gainful employment? I do not believe that driving down youth wages, or the wages of other groups, will increase employment. If people have less money in their pocket, how are they to buy manufactured goods? If workers have less and less money, how are they to maintain the jobs of those who are in work by buying the goods that they produce?
We should consider the young workers scheme and other means of reducing the cost of employing youngsters. Apparently only 6 per cent. of people covered by the young workers scheme are in new jobs that have been created by the scheme and just under 90 per cent. are in jobs that existed before. The only beneficiaries have been the employers who now receive a subsidy from the Government of £10 to £15 a week, depending on the age of the employee. I understand that 4 per cent. of jobs in the young workers scheme are the jobs of older workers who would still have jobs now if it were not for the scheme. That method of driving down youth wages has only a one-in-15 success rate. That will not solve the problems of the 333,000 youngsters who are long-term unemployed. Employers have merely used the scheme as a means of getting a little pocket money.
A few weeks ago the Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that the wages of youngsters, as compared with those of adults, had fallen in the past four years. He also told me in a written answer that whereas wages for boys had fallen by 8 per cent. against adult wages in the past four years, wages for girls had fallen by 12 per cent. I suggest that the main reason for that fall is the targets and the examples set by the youth opportunities programme and the youth training scheme. Employers have virtually acknowledged that if the allowance in those schemes is the going rate, there is no need to improve wages. We have witnessed many apprenticeship and trainee allowances being negotiated downwards to get them closer to the YTS rate of £25 a week.
The Minister has admitted that youth wages have fallen as compared with the adult rate and that, during the same period, unemployment has trebled. Where then is the connection between driving down wages and providing more jobs? I hesitate to suggest it, but, bearing in mind the publicity that the programme attracted and the creation of factories, envisaged by the former Secretary of State for Employment, that can undercut far eastern countries by using youngsters to produce goods more quickly and more cheaply, we are not far off exploiting youth to the extent that we saw in the "World in Action" programme about the Bangkok production of textiles and woollens. The

Government's approach to unemployment affords no solutions to the problems of the young or other unemployed. The promise that we hear every time is that when the economy picks up things will get better. Depending on which financial newspaper one reads—the Financial Times, The Times, The Economist or the Wall Street Journal —the predictions that the world recession is over stretch back as far as two and a half years.
Yesterday the Financial Times index reached record heights again, with an increase of three points pushing it well above the 800 mark. However, the picture of a mini-boom at the end of a recession does not hold much weight with the unemployed, among the 6 million people who live in damp houses or among the 15 million people who live on or below the poverty line. Tell them that there is a boom, and they are likely to laugh.
During the past four years the wealth-creating sector of the economy — manufacturing industry — has been decimated, especially in the area that I represent. Almost one fifth of manufacturing industry has been destroyed. Investment in industry has fallen by one third. No doubt this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he has tried to do in the past few months, will claim that there has been a 4 per cent., 6 per cent. or 7 per cent.—I believe that the latest figure is 9 per cent. — increase in investment forecast for the year. But that starts from the base of a 36 per cent. reduction in investment between 1979 and 1983. Industrialists lost confidence in investing in domestic industry. The fact that investment has increased a little will not alter matters.
I can illustrate my point, again using Coventry, in case the Minister has similar figures and tries to refute my argument by claiming that during the past year there has been a decline in unemployment in Coventry. From October 1982 to October 1983, unemployment declined by about 298 people to about 28,000. However, when one considers the redundancies in the pipeline, a clear picture emerges that the horrendous level of unemployment has been maintained and might be increased further. The increase in redundancies notified between October 1982 and October 1983 was 41 per cent. higher than in the previous year. Yet that was the period when Government spokesmen on industry had latched on to the idea that the recovery was just around the corner or that it was beginning to happen. Of that total, 92 per cent. of redundancies were in manufacturing industry. Coventry was built on engineering, car production and electronics and, going further back, on bicycles.
From where will the new jobs come to solve the unemployment problems of Coventry and the west midlands? Will they come from the rise in productivity which working people have been asked to achieve during several years? We need look no further than the present dispute in the mining industry, where workers are asked to increase productivity. During the past four or five years, the miners have increased productivity, the output of coal per shift and the amount of coal that they have generated. The result of the increase is that 58 million tonnes of coal lies at the pit-heads and the power stations. There have been 11,000, 8,000 and 9,000 redundancies in each of the previous years, and according to the MacGregor plan at least 25,000 further redundancies have been demanded.
The result of increased productivity for the miners has been increased unemployment. Increased productivity of its own right will not solve the problem of unemployment. For the miners, it throws up a thousand and one


contradictions. We hear spokesmen from the Department of Energy lambasting the miners for not protecting the industry's interests. What about the coal stocks, 22 million tonnes of which are at the pithead? It is costing the Government, again according to a written answer, through the Coal Board, over £100 million a year in interest charges to keep those coal stocks, and all that is paid for by the taxpayer.
In the four or five months of a particularly bad winter, up to 50,000 pensioners are expected to die from hypothermia. The statistics do not necessarily show this because hypothermia is often not shown on the death certificate as the cause of death. However, in the winter of 1981–82, there were 48,000 more deaths of pensioners recorded than there were in the summer months. The difference between the summer and the winter months is the cold, so that statistic shows how old people die of cold. We could kill two birds with one stone. There are huge surpluses of stored coal at the pithead, and we could give the pensioners free coal, thus reducing the drain on the Coal Board's finances.
Will the Minister say whether the recovery and the problems of unemployment will be solved by the small businesses? In the past year we have had a record number of bankruptcies.

Mr. Roger Gale: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although certain firms have gone out of business, there have been a record number of startups in the west midlands, which have infinitely outpaced the number of bankruptcies?

Mr. Nellist: If that were the case, we should expect to see a fall in the number of people suffering from poverty, or in the number of people unemployed, and a rise in the number of vacancies for young people from school. As none of those things has happened, I can only assume that one failed business changes its name and becomes the same business under a different name. Anybody who walks around the major cities of the midlands and sees the number of "For Sale" signs on industrial premises and shops will not have a believable picture of the corner being turned in the provision of employment through new businesses.

Mr. Gale: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my question. I also know the west midlands quite well. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was not a fact that more new businesses have been starting in the past three years than there have been bankruptcies.

Mr. Nellist: The number of businesses starting may have increased, but I am challenging whether that has any relationship with the number of jobs available. I have not seen, as I assume that the hon. Gentleman has not seen, a significant fall in the number of unemployed in the cities of Birmingham and Coventry that could be attributable to the number of names on company registers or to extra businesses. I maintain that when I walk in Coventry the picture is still one of decline, with many "For Sale" notices on businesses that are going bust.
Where will jobs come from? We have been told a number of times by the Government that if workers are prepared to tighten their belts and make a few more sacrifices, become more productive, get rid of restrictive practices, improve working relations with the management

and so on and so forth, these will all be panaceas for unemployment, but there is still no improvement in the unemployment problem.
We are told that the recession is coming to an end and that a new era of prosperity is round the corner. The rate of growth will not match that of the 1950s and 1960s in terms of increased wages and so on. That is not impossible to forecast. How will jobs be created in the coming better times? According to the deputy governor of the Bank of England, Mr. McMahon, when the rate of increase in demand from the low point of the recession up to the present time is analysed, an average of 9 per cent. is arrived at, and that accords with the figure given by Government economic spokesmen. On the other hand, in terms of the supply to meet that demand, whereas manufacturing output has increased by 4 per cent., the increase in imports during the same period has been a staggering 34 per cent. How, if Britain will be recovering in 1984–85, will more jobs be created?

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman, coming from Coventry, must know that if all the cars sold in Britain were manufactured by British car manufacturers, there would be no shortage of jobs in United Kingdom car factories. The problem is that our car factories priced themselves out of the markets.

Mr. Nellist: Having worked in that industry, I could answer the hon. Gentleman at length, but I must not branch out into too many issues. The car industry here is not owned by Britain in that Ford, General Motors and Vauxhall are multinationals. Whereas investment in the industry in the last 10 to 15 years has enabled the giants which straddle the world to develop in other countries, the same investment has not occurred here. For example, about four years ago there were about £7,000 worth of productive assets per worker in the British car industry, £23,000 per worker in Germany and £32,000 per worker in Japan. When comparing British output with that of Japan or Europe, one must take into account the investment that has been made in those countries and, therefore, how much productivity each worker can deliver. It is like telling two workers each to dig a field, giving one a spade and one a tractor, and then blaming the one with the spade for taking two days whereas the one with the tractor took two hours.
The blame for the rapid decline in employment in Britain must be laid at the door of those who own the wealth and the productive capacity in society. They have been responsible for the gap in investment between Britain and the countries of the OECD, in particular Japan, America and the countries of Europe. According to the National Westminster Bank, the figures having been calculated to take account of inflation, simply for British manufacturing industry to regain its own position—of 30 years ago, when we controlled about 25 per cent. of world trade compared with 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. today — in our own domestic market will require massive investment.
According to the National Westminster Bank, investment is required to the extent of £200,000 million. Investment in manufacturing industry is currently between £5,000 million and £6,000 million. On this basis it will take 35–40 years at the present rate of progress to catch up with the other countries of Europe, America and Japan. But during that period the investment programmes of other


countries will enable them to edge even further away from Britain. Forty times more investment is required than industry invests in Britain in any one year. That is the root cause of our lack of competitiveness and the lack of productivity. It is not the workers who are at fault, and neither are our pricing policies. British industry cannot produce goods as cheaply and quickly as its competitors because historically it has not had sufficient investment.
Over the past four years, especially since the removal of exchange controls, £32 million a day has gone abroad to the far east, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, That land and other countries whose wage rates are even lower than those of British workers. In many of these countries trade unions are illegal and military dictatorships ensure that unions are ineffective, if they are allowed to exist. It is estimated by the financial press that £90,000 million-worth of assets that are owned by Britain are now abroad. The value of British-owned assets abroad has trebled over the past four or five years. This is why Britain's unemployment is worse than that of other countries. We are suffering because of a failure to invest and the transfer of moneys abroad.
The present method of organising society—capitalism and a Tory Government — is incapable of coming to grips with mass unemployment. Attempts are made to hide the worst features of it. We have training schemes and other cosmetic measures that are designed to remove the unemployed from dole figures or from the streets. These measures do not cure the root causes of unemployment and they are incapable of providing jobs. But there is work to be done within society. There are 6 million people living in damp homes and nearly 400,000 building workers are unemployed. A sane society would match the skills of unemployed building workers to the needs that are expressed in society. They would be employed to build decent housing for workers. There are plenty of building materials. An oft-quoted example is the stockpile of bricks. The stockpile could be used to build a town the size of Derby. There is enough material there to build 50,000 houses.
The cost of nuclear defence is colossal. The money that is devoted to that programme would enable 500,000 to 1 million houses to be built a year. That corresponds to the targets that existed after the second world war and in the 1950s. Those targets could be realised if society had the will and the means to control and organise construction and a building programme that would give workers decent houses and take unemployed building workers off the dole.
In the construction industry, 20 per cent. of capacity is unused. In the ceramic and engineering industries and other forms of manufacture the rate varies between 15 per cent. and 40 per cent. Millions of pounds of wealth are being wasted. Instead of people being paid to sit at home to be idle and to remain unemployed, work should be given to provide an opportunity to create wealth within our society. If that were done, there would be a different form of society. A different form of ownership would require the planning of society itself.
The Government now spend £17,000 million a year on keeping people unemployed. The Government began their life by cutting £28 million off the youth opportunities programme. They realised that they would never solve mass youth unemployment. At present, they spend £700

million on YTS. That will probably double in the next three years. The amount of money that is being spent on keeping people unemployed is horrendous. What about the waste that there has been in North sea oil revenues, which could have been used for the regeneration of industry? There is also the wealth that could be created if industry were working at full-load capacity.
The solutions can be found, but not while society is based on production not for need but for profit, and not while it is based on providing people like the Duke of Westminster, with his £2,000 million worth of property within one and a half miles of this House, and the top people in society with estates, Rolls-Royces and all the other trappings of the high life. To pay for all that, society keeps young workers and unemployed workers of all ages idle, without a chance to use their skills. This capitalist society which the Conservative Government support and organise will not solve mass unemployment. To do that, we need a change of Government and a change in the control of the economy.

Mr. David Amess: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for allowing us to discuss these matters, although my approach to the creation of job opportunities is rather different from his — and, indeed, from that of the Government.
I want to say a brief word about unemployment in Basildon and, in particular, about the intended closure of the Carreras Rothmans factory. Five weeks before Christmas, I had the privilege to be invited to the factory. I was shown round, and I saw the goods that are made there. I met the work force and was given a warm welcome. I also met the management. The general atmosphere was one of great optimism. So when I was telephoned on 5 January to say that the company was to announce the closure of the factory, not only was I devastated but so were the many people who worked there.
I immediately made representations to the Government, and tabled early-day motion 443. I was rather saddened when a number of Opposition Members sought to amend my motion. I am well aware of how some hon. Members feel about smoking and the damage that it does to health. I am sure it was a brave action to amend my early-day motion, but I wonder whether those hon. Members, if they had joined me in the second week of January when I and the general secretary of the Tobacco Workers Union, Doug Grieve, addressed the 1,200 workers outside the factory gates in Basildon, would have been so brave in putting forward their view there. I doubt it very much.
I query the rational decision-making process in a company that decided that 832 million cigarettes should be delivered to Iraq by last month. A company which can allow a belligerent fighting a major war to have so much credit — the Iraqis are quite unable to pay cash at present, because of the war — must surely have its priorities wrong. Perhaps the Export Credits Guarantee Department is helping. What is relevant is the attitude of the company. If Rothmans International is prepared to risk the money involved in 832 million cigarettes, one feels that it might find the insubstantial risk of a fourth factory in the United Kingdom to be more profitable in the long run, more socially and morally respectable and far more likely to win friends and influence people.
Carreras came to Basildon 22 years ago, at an important time for the development of the new town. For some 12 years it was a star, both in Essex and in the company, which grew as a combination with Rothmans, and the subsequent international connections followed. The factory has been instrumental in the Carreras climb to the top. Over 500 of the 1,268 people due to be made redundant have been with the firm for over 10 years. They have naturally helped to put the company where it is today. What is their reward? What do their dedication and loyalty to the company count for?
I have always believed that loyalty works both ways —to the company and from the company. To show the kind of loyalty that the work force of Basildon has shown, let me take hon. Members back to 1981. It was a bad year for the industry. The massive problems inherited from the previous Labour Administration had still to work their way through the system. Carreras Rothmans' export sales dipped by nearly £2·5 billion and its home market by over half a billion cigarettes.
To help stabilise the company and place it in a position to increase its market share and sales, the Tobacco Workers Union agreed to voluntary redundancies. Since 1981, about 1,000 workers at Basildon have taken voluntary redundancy. The company's shares have gone up by 2·2 per cent. Last year its pre-tax profits were up 80 per cent. to £54 million. Exports rose by half a billion cigarettes—and Basildon, I emphasise, makes cigarettes for export. Home sales are up by 100 million—higher sales, greater profits and fewer workers. But then came the blow, delivered with the frantic haste of a company about to collapse.
The figures that I have given are those of Carreras. Do they sound like a falling giant? Does it sound like an occasion where a mere 90 days are required for consultation? Does it sound even remotely as if the official receiver is at the gate of the walled city of Rothmans, desperately trying one last charge to ward off the enemy? No, it does not. For 10 years Basildon has had no really new equipment. Cast-offs from other factories have been its lot. The Darlington factory of Carreras was opened in 1977 to meet increased export demands. The Spennymoor factory was opened in 1979. Massive doses of regional aid came from local councils. The Government and the EEC have allowed the company to install the latest machinery at a minute cost.
Basildon has received second-class treatment. Did that turn my constituents into whiners and whingers? Did it make them the sort of troublesome work force that anyone would be glad to get rid of? No, it did not. Even under those handicaps the people of the factory at Basildon received the Queen's award for export only last year, making Carreras Rothmans the only tobacco company ever to receive such an award. I trust that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that it is a fine record for any factory in the United Kingdom. I am proud to have these people in my constituency.
We are proud people in Basildon, and my constituents are now forced to go cap in hand to the company and plead for more money and aid to survive their early retirement. Carreras Rothmans commenced negotiations — if I can use the word so loosely—with an offer of an ex gratia payment of £2,500. It also demanded that everybody worked normally until the closing date on 6 April, including overtime. Reasonably, the work force refused to do overtime on the ground that if extra work were needed

before 6 April, ordinary work would be needed after it. The company issued a verbal threat, amounting to blackmail, that any refusal to work as ordered would result in a review. I have spoken to the men there and they tell me that they feel humiliated. They have been treated like Oliver Twist, being asked for more every time they negotiate for help. There is no time to act or talk sensibly.
The law states that a firm must give 90 days' notice of redundancy. It was designed for companies in crises to protect the work force from consequential devastation. I have established that the company is not in crisis, yet it gave 91 days' notice.
That same law also states that companies must listen seriously to counter-proposals put forward by the union. We are talking here of a union not of the blinkered Left but so moderate that it has negotiated away thousands of jobs in the interest of industry and the long-term security of its members. Yet the company provides neither it nor me with any proper facts to see whether an alternative case can be made.
There were seven new jobs in the north-west, and now there are another 30—expansion at a time, according to Carreras Rothmans, of contraction in the industry. The local trade unions have had to fight to get those jobs advertised to the work force in Basildon. Tobacco jobs should be offered to experienced tobacco men. Since the news of the closure, the Northern Ireland factory has been put on overtime—enough to fuel 150 more jobs. In the north-west, 140 redundancy notices have been withdrawn.
As I said, the brunt has fallen entirely on my constituents, with the unemployment rate now unfortunately at 15·4 per cent. — the highest in southern England. We already have 8,000 people unemployed in my area. The addition of another 1,200 will take us into the 16 to 17 per cent. range—the equal of anywhere in the north or the north-west. In terms of numbers, Basildon contributes one-seventh of all Essex unemployment. With neighbouring Southend, over one quarter of Essex unemployment is concentrated on one small corner, close to London. We do not need the closure, and the company does not need the closure.
I know that the Government, whom I fully support, are not in the business of propping up lame ducks, and I know that it is rather difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister to intervene. However, I should be grateful if there could be one last attempt by Ministers to try to persuade the company to keep at least some of its jobs in Basildon.

Mr. Roger Gale: I have no prepared speech. The remarks I wish to make spring directly from those made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) in introducing the debate. It is incumbent upon some hon. Members, after that chapter of gloom, to offer some hope and some cheer to the young people of the country. This I should like to try to do in a couple of minutes.
I am glad that there was no industrialist sitting in the Strangers Gallery to listen to the catalogue of disasters, because any such person, having heard the picture painted of this country by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, would have run to some other country to. invest.
It is a fact that, for some 30 years, the country has seen a lack of investment, bad management and appalling trade union practice. As a direct result, the industries of the country found themselves five years ago in the situation


that they undoubtedly were in. I heard no positive comment, no suggestion whatever, of any alternative, any real solution or any alleviation for the unemployment that faces many people in the country. No Conservative Member is complacent about that. Some of us have personal experience of the effects of unemployment on family and social life, and the social effects can be quite devastating.
What are Conservative Members trying to do about it? I suggest that we at least have some positive solutions. First, I wish to give some support to the youth training scheme, the scheme which has been so denigrated by Opposition Members time after time in the House and again today by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. Thousands of young people are now offered, for the first time in the history of the country, a genuine short-term apprenticeship. That, after a year of training and off-site training, will equip them with a genuine reference that will tell a potential and future employer exactly what they have done, what experience they have, and what they are capable of doing. There are thousands of young people benefiting from that scheme, taking advantage of it, enjoying it, and who, after only six months in it, are going out into the world and getting jobs.
Many of the training posts that have been created have now been turned into genuine full-time jobs for those young people. In my constituency, the Thanet youth training scheme is a shining example of exactly this. Now 52 per cent. of the people employed on that scheme are looking forward to full-time jobs as a direct result of it. There is every reason to suppose that the remaining 48 per cent. will, by the end of this year, be just as successful. That is immensely worthwhile. It should not be denigrated. The young people whom we on the Government Benches are trying to encourage to take part in next year's scheme, and the year after, employed and unemployed, should not be dissuaded by the hollow argument that this is in some way cheap labour. It is not cheap labour. It is a genuine training, a genuine apprenticeship and should be regarded as such, treated as such and respected.

Mr. Nellist: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that since we are only six or seven months into the youth training scheme the only national figures we can go on are the previous three years of the governmental training scheme, each of which was described as having given excellent training to youth? Does he not further accept that nationally only 38 per cent. of those who left the youth opportunities programme got work? While I am, perhaps, the most persistent critic of the youth training scheme, I, too, have seen schemes from which youngsters have benefited. My main criticism has always been, what happens the day after the youngsters leave the scheme? Are there sufficient jobs to enable them to use their skills?

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it is at least a positive comment. I am grateful to him for recognising the value of the scheme. Of course we are all concerned about what happens to those young people when they leave the scheme. My constituency has one of the highest unemployment levels in the country, at around 20 per cent. I know that the southeast is not normally regarded as an area of high

unemployment. We, too, face closures but are looking to the future. We are trying to attract new industry. That is where the jobs of the future lie.
With respect to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, it is no use saying that the midlands was the industrial base of the country. Yes, it was. It used to be said that they had metal in their fingers. They still do, but there is too much metal in too many fingers. The choice facing British Leyland three years ago was not between having 14,500 jobs or the 9,000 jobs that it now has. It was between having 9,000 jobs or none at all. We had to shed those jobs if we were to compete. The car industry is one example of how British industry must face the future. It has to slim down if it is to produce goods on time and of a quality that people want.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East has referred to the coal miners' strike. What kind of example does that set the world? We want people to come here and invest money. Even the hon. Member, capitalist though he is not, agreed that we wanted investment. If we want people to come, we have to show them that we can produce the right goods at the right time. I believe that we can compete on equal terms with anyone anywhere. That is what we are offering in my constituency. We are not offering regional aid. We do not have it. We are not offering an enterprise zone. We do not have that, and I do not believe that either of those things creates many new jobs. There is an argument that says that on occasions they cost jobs. I do not want to see either of those things. I want to see real, new investment. The way forward—here I agree with the hon. Gentleman—is to encourage new investment. We shall do it not by striking but by saying "We are here, we are the place of the future. Come to us." We shall do that best of all by training our young people, as we are, and equipping them for the future.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am greatful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for raising again the matter of unemployment—something that he does regularly in this House. I know that he feels strongly about it. I hope he will give credit to my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) for feeling equally strongly. I trust that he will also understand that I, too, feel strongly about this issue.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North has put an alternative point of view, which I intend to support in my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon will, I am sure, find a ready welcome in his constituency for the words he uttered on behalf of his constituents. Obviously the planned closure of the Carreras Rothman factory in his constituency is a matter of great concern to him and many of his constituents. If I may say so, he put the case on their behalf cogently and well.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, introducing the debate, talked about the atmosphere of the rich and powerful on the Stock Exchange. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North suggested that the hon. Gentleman was not a capitalist. I have to say that I would once have agreed with my hon. Friend, but the interesting thing is that the hon. Gentleman—and I have listened to many of his speeches since he was first elected— is turning into a capitalist. It is fascinating to see the way that he has been persuaded by debate in this House. He is


beginning to understand — and I am sure that his constituents will be pleased to hear it — that, as he pointed out during his speech, a job exists when a company exists—when an entrepreneur is around. In answer to a question about how many company closures and company births there had been in his constituency, he found it difficult to counter the point put to him and actually accepted that if there were births of companies in his constituency that meant that jobs would arise. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on beginning to understand that jobs exist only when a product is produced. I am sure that his general management committee will be very pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman is turning into a quasi-capitalist. We hope, slowly but surely, to win him over even more.
We on the Government Benches feel strongly about unemployment, but there is no simple way out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North pointed out. The hon. Gentleman pointed out how many people were unemployed in the United Kingdom, in the west midlands, in his constituency, but he did not provide us with any answer. Much as he would like to create jobs overnight —much as I would like to be able to do so—it is not so simple. Why? It is because, as the hon. Gentleman begins to understand, whether a person is employed in the public or the private sector, someone has to pay that person's wages. In the public sector, whether we are talking about nurses, hospital porters or teachers, the wages of such people are paid for by the taxpayer or the ratepayer or a combination of both.
Again, I was glad that we had begun to convert the hon. Gentleman, because he referred to taxpayers' money. When he was first elected to the House eight months ago he referred to Government money. Now he has an understanding that it is the money either of the ratepayer or the taxpayer. We are beginning to win the argument there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand, perhaps because he is close to his colleagues in Sheffield or Lambeth, that, in boroughs where rates are disproportionately high, the willingness of the private sector to move into such boroughs, because of the burden of the rates, is that much less, which in turn means that the jobs will not be available.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is it not significant that a number of companies in Liverpool are now dropping the word "Liverpool" from their business name, because they are so concerned at the effect the antics of Liverpool city council are having upon attempts to win orders for that city?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is an expert on different parts of the country, and I was interested to hear what he had to say. Potential investors do not move into cities such as Sheffield, which I must visit on several occasions because I am the Minister responsible for the Manpower Services Commission, where rates are very high. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North pointed out, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East does a disservice to his area. The hon. Gentleman talked about outward investment. He wants inward investment into Coventry. I may be wrong, and could have overreacted to his speech, but the hon. Gentleman may be warning potential investors off with the type of rhetoric he uses on behalf of his constituency.
If it were not for the taxpayer and ratepayer—the hon. Gentleman accepts that either will pay—the public sector borrowing requirement could be widened. The

higher the public sector borrowing requirement, the higher will be the level of interest rates. The higher the level of interest rates, the higher will be the overheads of industry. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, since the beginning of 1983, base lending rates have decreased by 2 per cent., which means an annual benefit to industry's financing costs of about £500 million, but the hon. Gentleman chose not to mention that point.
A job exists only—I am not sure that we have won the argument with the hon. Gentleman, but I hope we have —when a product or service is provided at a cost and of a quality that people wish to buy. I have said that before, and I shall say it again.
Let us go backwards before we go forwards. The hon. Gentleman and I do not agree about macro points. We are poles apart about the means to create employment. It is possible that we would agree that between 1974 and 1979 the economy was not managed in the best way. During that period, we lost productivity and competitiveness, and, therefore, jobs for the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will disown what happened during the period of the Labour Government.

Mr. Nellist: During the period of the Labour Government, I was critical of many of their actions. My record in the Coventry Labour party for opposing unnecessary rate rises is probably second to none. My position in Coventry cannot be compared with what is happening in Sheffield and elsewhere. The Minister tries to say that the five-year period of the Labour Government saw a poor record of productivity. His Department's analyses of industrial and economic life show that in the past 40 or 50 years in every aspect of productivity, capital formation and so on, Britain has been substantially less effective than its major competitors. That is especially true of circumstances in the 1960s and 1970s. The problems cannot be laid only at the door of the Labour Government.

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that in the 1970s output rose by only 17 per cent., while wages rose by 350 per cent., primarily because of the Labour Government. That is the backdrop against which the Conservative Government came into power in 1979, and that, coupled with the world recession, meant that our problems in getting the United Kingdom into a more competitive position made life substantially more difficult.

Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way'?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman spoke for 45 minutes, as he well knows, so I shall not give way.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government do not care, but he should look at what is happening. I draw a distinction between special employment measures and training measures. In Great Britain as a whole, there are 124,000 entrants on the community programme. On the enterprise allowance scheme, to which I imagine the hon. Gentleman is slowly being converted, there are about 26,400 people. There are 105,000 people on the young workers' scheme, which he decries. Thanks to the job release scheme, there are about 90,000 people involved and more than 250,000 have been involved since the scheme began in 1977. There are 7,000 taking part in community industry. On the special training measures, there are, as of today——

It being Nine o' clock on Tuesday morning, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Weed Research Organisation (Yarnton)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

9 am

Mr. Tony Baldry: In initiating this debate, I am also speaking on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), in whose constituency a similar closure is taking place at Letcombe and who, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), has been in close touch with the Agricultural and Food Research Council to try to ensure that the objections raised by or on behalf of the staff at those two institutes are taken fully into account and properly answered before any irreversible action is taken.
The Weed Research Organisation at Yarnton in Oxfordshire has been carrying out important work on weeds and their control for over 20 years. It is financed by the AFRC, which in turn has a sizeable proportion of its work funded by the Department of Education and Science.
The WRO is regarded internationally as the world centre of excellence for weed science. I have seen tributes from learned institutes in numerous countries to the institute's work. The president of the International Weed Science Society comments:
The WRO is now a very unique and special organisation".
The director of the International Plant Protection Centre in the United States comments:
WRO is undoubtedly the best known and best qualified weed research group in the world.
At home the organisation is highly respected and regarded by the farming community. The National Farmers Union states:
WRO stands out amongst the AFRC's institutes for its excellent rapport with the fanning industry.
The AFRC has decided that this highly regarded research organisation should close because it feels compelled to make savings consequent upon a reduction in its income from the Department of Education and Science in 1986–87 and a desire to divert spending from current projects into new food research. I submit that to close the WRO is a shortsighted decision, made without adequate consultation, without any, or any adequate, scientific debate and without sufficient opportunity for alternative options to be considered fully.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is responsible for overseeing his Department's funding of the AFRC will urge it to delay the implementation of the proposal to close WRO until there has been adequate debate and consultation on this proposal and adequate consideration of alternative proposals, which, it should be emphasised, could in all probability achieve the desired savings while enabling WRO to continue its valuable and much-respected work.
Those who work at WRO are public servants who are doing good work in a respected institute. They have been bruised, not just by the decision to close WRO but by the way in which the decision has been taken.
I shall run briefly through the history of the proposal to close WRO. In March, each institute within AFRC was asked to identify possible significant savings, concentrating on work funded by the Department of Education and Science. During the summer of 1982 the responses were studied by a so-called core group of the AFRC comprising the secretary and second secretary of the council and three

institute directors. That group contained no one with a particular interest in weed research. The core group reported in October 1982 and suggested that there should be a review of work done on crop protection, a subject that had recently been studied in great detail by a special working party of the AFRC, which had recommended an increase in spending on weed research relative to other disciplines of crop protection.
The next development was a paper in February 1983 prepared by the AFRC secretariat, which identified savings by restructuring arable crops research. However, the scientific case for singling out arable crops to bear the brunt of the cuts received little attention. It has received scant attention since.
By July the council was considering various savings in detail, and a paper submitted by the secretariat to the July meeting of the AFRC commented that
savings would probably be maximised by abandoning the WRO site altogether".
However, the paper went on to say that
this might not be sensible on scientific or practical grounds".
The paper acknowledged that WRO was a well-respected institute with practical programmes familiar to progressive arable farmers.
At this stage, one suspects that there was insufficient scientific discussion of the options. Expediency prevailed. Responsibility was then passed to a committee of five institute directors, who concluded that, to make the necessary savings within the AFRC, one of the three institutes — WRO, Letcombe near Wantage or Long Ashton near Bristol—would have to close. There was no agreement as to which institute would close and little time to consider either the scientific or agricultural implications of the various options.
Senior scientific staff at WRO and Letcombe came to the conclusion that there was a very strong case for the merger of WRO and Letcombe at the WRO site at Yarnton. In consultation with the professor of rural economy at Oxford, those advocating a Letcombe-WRO merger presented a fully worked out proposal to the plants and soils committee of the AFRC in November. The proposal included detailed costings of staff transfers, redundancy payments and building costs, as well as incorporating relevant parts of Long Ashton's programme.
The outcome was that that important committee of the AFRC, the plants and soils committee, and the majority of the institute directors consulted and involved favoured, on both scientific and agricultural grounds, the proposal for a new Oxford institute of crop and weed science to be developed at the WRO site in collaboration with Oxford university. It should be emphasised that that proposal would have met the savings required by the AFRC.
However, when the AFRC met on 13 December last year to consider the future, the secretariat made available only brief written details of the Letcombe-WRO merger proposal so recently endorsed by the plants and soils committee, while the secretariat allowed to be included among the formal papers for that meeting a comprehensive paper written by the director of Long Ashton, in which he, not surprisingly, argued against the new Oxford institute proposed. The council decided to close Letcombe and the WRO and to transfer some new research work to Long Ashton.
I hope that after that brief review of the history of the decision, in which it can be seen that insufficient attention


and scant regard were given to the proposal of the WRO-Letcombe merger, my hon. Friend the Minister will understand why those working at WRO are bruised not only by the decision but by the way in which that decision to close the institute was taken.
The only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the decision to close WRO was taken on grounds of simple asset value and expediency — the AFRC owns the freehold of the WRO site, and it is unencumbered by either an independent governing body or endowments, so the site is easy to close down. There is the added bonus of being able to sell the site on the open market and raise some money.
Given that the proposal that a crop and weed science institute should be formed by the merger of WRO and Letcombe meets the financial costings required by the AFRC in the arable crops and crop protection area, and that the proposal for a new Oxford institute has widespread support among the staff and a majority of the directors of the institutes involved and the agricultural community, it must be sensible to delay the implementation of the decision to close the WRO until this alternative option has been fully and properly explored.
I should have thought that the AFRC would be anxious to prove beyond peradventure to all involved that its decision was the best possible in all the circumstances and made with the best possible motives. In my submission, it has not so far done that.
Furthermore, scientific staff at Yarnton WRO are individuals concerned in the advance of scientific knowledge. Without their dedication, the AFRC would have no research programmes. The loyalty and commitment of staff is an important asset which cannot be sold or disposed of so easily as land and buildings. If staff at WRO do not feel that there has been adequate and fair debate on the various proposals put forward, and especially on the suggestion that WRO and Letcome should merge into a new Oxford institute, there is a real risk that experienced staff may decide to leave the research service completely instead of being transferred. The loss of their experience could only be damaging to future research.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider intervening to the extent of exhorting the AFRC to delay implementation of the present proposals until there has been adequate debate and consideration of them and the possible alternatives.
In addition, there are a number of reasons why the AFRC decision to transfer any future weed research work to Long Ashton should be questioned. Such a move will severely disrupt current work and virtually eliminate the field experiment programme, which has been a major factor in WRO's success. There is little suitable land for field experiments in arable crops either at Long Ashton or in the surrounding area. Oxfordshire is near the heartland of England and it is thus possible for field teams to investigate problems in crops in most parts of the country. This will be much more expensive and difficult from Bristol. Long Ashton is simply too far away from the main arable crop areas. Further, one must not underestimate the value of the work that WRO is doing.
There is an ever-increasing need for independent information on the environmental effects of herbicides. If weed research is run down, we shall in future have to be advised by the chemical manufacturers themselves as to the viability of various herbicides and manufacturers can

be expected to take a rather more commercial and less independent and academic approach than one would wish. There is an important job to be done in testing new herbicides and working out the economics of their use. This is a job that WRO has been doing with skill for 20 years. Indeed, weeds and soil at Yarnton have been carefully nurtured and monitored over many years.
WRO is recognised internationally as a centre of excellence in research and information on weeds and their control. This will be in danger of being lost at the very time when the Food and Agriculture Organisation has begun a much-needed programme of improving weed management in developing countries, to which WRO would wish to contribute. Perhaps most importantly, at a time when profit margins on arable crop production are declining, farmers urgently need good, independent information about the cost-benefits of weed control.
There is good cause to believe that the AFRC decision to close the Weed Research Organisation was taken too hastily, for the wrong reasons and without proper consideration of possible alternatives. Any moves to close the WRO should be delayed while proper consideration is given to realistic alternatives.

Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and to my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me to intervene briefly.
In its press release of 15 December last, the AFRC described research into straw disposal as being "in balance". The major centre for this research is Letcombe, which it is now proposed to close. I fail to see how it is possible to close that establishment and to continue the research "in balance" as described by AFRC.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend for Banbury that the decisions have been taken hastily and without sufficient consideration. I join him in asking my hon. Friend to intervene to exhort the council to delay and reconsider its proposals.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for raising this topic. The House does not have enough opportunities to discuss scientific problems, and I always welcome such occasions.
As the subject of the debate is the Weed Research Organisation at Yarnton, I shall not talk about Letcombe except in an incidental way.
The Weed Research Organisation, which is based at Begbroke hill, Yarnton, is one of eight institutes directly controlled by the Agricultural and Food Research Council. The AFRC also supports the 14 state-aided institutes in England and Wales.
As hon. Members will, of course, be aware, the AFRC is a body which operates under a royal charter and whose main purpose is the support of research in the sciences relevant to food and agriculture. It does this by awarding research grants selectively to teams of scientists in the universities and by running or grant-aiding the 22 research institutes. It also supports postgraduate training in relevant fields of science.
The AFRC receives money with which to conduct its various scientific activities from two main sources. There


is the science budget of the Department of Education and Science, and there is the income from research commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. About half the council's income is derived from each source. In the current financial year the council will receive £46 million in grant-in-aid from my Department and £50·9 million from MAFF commissions. Those sums are cash limited.
The council is having to plan to accommodate a significant reduction in its income over the next three years. It is difficult to be precise about the likely total loss of income over the period, since cash allocations beyond the 1984–85 financial year have yet to be decided. I know, however, that the council estimates that its budget may be about 7 per cent. less than now, in real terms, by the end of the period. The council's expected loss of income is due in part to a planned reduction in the council's share of the science budget. That reduction was foreshadowed in the advisory board for the research council's published 1982 advice to my right hon. Friend and reiterated in the board's 1983 advice, which will shortly be published.
The main reason why the ABRC recommended such a reduction was that the board's assessment of scientific priorities pointed to the need for an increase in the funds for one of the science budget's other client bodies, the Science and Engineering Research Council, to enable SERC to expand its programme of research in vitally important areas, including the areas of information technology. As the level of the science budget as a whole has been held steady in real terms, it is evident that this increase in funds had to be secured by reducing the provision for other councils. On ABRC advice, the main burden of the reduction has fallen on the Agricultural and Food Research Council and on the Natural Environment Research Council. This is not to say that the board doubted the quality of the science being supported by those two councils. It was a question, rather, of having to make harsh choices at a time of overall restraint in public expenditure. My right hon. Friend accepted the ABRC's advice in this matter in making allocations to the research councils for 1984–85.
Now the AFRC, in common with the other research councils, is responsible—within the purposes set out in its royal charter and taking account of any views expressed by the ABRC—for deciding on its scientific priorities and on how its activities should be directed. Once my right hon. Friend has decided the size of the council's grant-in-aid, it is his practice to give it to the council without direction as to how it should be spent.
Taking account of the implications for future funding of the ABRC advice, and wishing to retain the flexibility which any forward-looking scientific organisation should have to move into new and promising areas of scientific activity, the AFRC drew up its first corporate plan. The corporate plan, copies of which may be found in the Library, but which I know many hon. Members will be well aware of, was prepared in consultation with the Agriculture Departments, the universities and the industries concerned. It covers work commissioned with the council by the Agriculture Departments as well as with the mainly fundamental scientific work done with grant-in-aid from my Department, and deals with the whole range of work in progress, with areas of new scientific opportunity, with the priorities identified by the council

and, in broad terms, with the measures which will be necessary to achieve desired objectives within the funds likely to be available. I have already said in the House how much I welcome the publication of the corporate plan, and I reiterate that welcome today. Within the context of the corporate plan, institute directors reviewed their priorities and decided, in consultation with the council, which programmes would have to be stopped and how many posts would have to be lost.
My hon. Friend referred to consultations. I believe that consultations on the future of WRO programmes have been adequate. I understand that, following discussion with institute directors on programme priorities during 1982, the restructuring of arable crops research was further considered by the Agricultural and Food Research Council in February 1983 when a savings target of £2·5 million was agreed. Detailed discussions followed in the forum of the council's plants and soils research committee under the chairmanship of Professor Jinks of Birmingham university and with a membership including other council members, three AFRC institute directors and representatives of the Agricultural Departments.
In August, the director of WRO and the other arable crop institute directors met the committee to comment on the ideas that were developing. The directors then formed their own working party to make recommendations to the committee on the ways in which savings of the order required could be achieved. They proposed several options, which were considered by the committee, and, after further meetings of the committee and a final meeting with the directors concerned, the committee submitted recommendations to the council for its December 1983 meeting. The outcome of the council's deliberations is well known to hon. Members. It is estimated that the committee members and institute directors devoted about 300 man hours to the arable crops restructuring discussions, so I am satisfied that decisions were reached without undue haste.
I understand that the AFRC's plants and soils research committee advised the council that savings on the required scale could be obtained only if two of the five institutes concerned were to close and that there were two main options for restructuring in that way. One was to consolidate weed research and the Letcombe laboratory's cultivation studies at Begbroke with all the rest of arable crops-related research being at Rothamsted experimental station. That option would have involved the closure of Long Ashton research station. The other option was to bring weed research together with other aspects of arable crop protection at Long Ashton and to consolidate crop production at Rothamsted. The council's plants and soils research committee and several directors were attracted to the practical image that an Oxford institute would have created, but they recognised that it would perpetuate the separation of crop protection work, mean greater disruption of staff and be more costly to implement in the light of the requirement for new laboratory buildings at Begbroke. In view of that, the council decided in favour of consolidating at Long Ashton work on crop protection currently carried out at WRO and at Long Ashton research station.
My hon. Friend mentioned cuts in weed science research. The reduction in activity in the AFRC, which includes horticultural and agricultural work, was partly in response to a decision to switch priorities into food research, which itself was in harmony with a


recommendation of a report of a Select Committee. It is not true that work on weed science research has been picked out for specially adverse treatment. The council's corporate plan makes it clear that work on plant science generally and on crop protection and production in particular will have to be reduced. Arable crop protection, which includes all the work of WRO, will have to be reduced by about 20 per cent. over the next three years. The precise elements of weed research that the council is able to continue funding will be determined by the council in the light of advice from directors and senior staff at Long Ashton and WRO and in the light of discussions between the council and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The council is committed to maintaining the largest possible weed science programme at Long Ashton.
The consolidation of work at Long Ashton will link WRO's important work on weed science more closely with related work at the Long Ashton station on hormonal control of plant growth, crop protection chemistry, cereal pests and diseases and spray application. In this way, work on weeds will benefit from close association with other scientific disciplines which have not been represented at the WRO at Begbroke. It will also help the integration of crop protection practices with crop husbandry generally to create efficient and environmentally acceptable control systems for farmers. The AFRC intends that the work will not be submerged in the wider programme, and it is intended that there will continue to be a clear point of contact for the advisory services, farmers and the agrochemical industry with concern for weed control.
My hon. Friend asked for a delay in implementation and intervention by my Department. There is no substance in the charge that the council was not in possession of all relevant information when it made its decision. All relevant papers, including papers produced by the director of the Weed Research Organisation and the director of the Letcombe laboratory, were submitted to the council for its meeting on 13 December 1983. All costings carried out relating to staff losses and transfers and costs of new buildings were submitted to the council. Analyses by the directors of WRO and Letcombe laboratory, and by the AFRC secretariat, showed that the option for the Oxford institute was more expensive than was the Long Ashton option. Therefore, I can give my hon. Friend no hope that there will be a delay in the implementation of this firmly taken decision. However, the coincidence of the retirements of the heads of WRO and of Long Ashton with the appointment of a new head of a merged institution in October this year means that there will be a reasonable time frame for the process of running down.
The phase-down of work at WRO and the transfer to Long Ashton is expected to take place over three years. It

is accepted that this restructuring exercise will result in some disruption to work and to the continuing staff, but the council attaches great importance to minimising that. The total redundancies are likely to be about 140, but at this stage it is impossible to give precise figures. Those redundancies will involve staff at WRO, at the Letcombe laboratory and at the Rothamsted experimental station.
My hon. Friend referred to the circumstances of research at Long Ashton. Although Long Ashton is further west than Begbroke, it is not foreseen that this will be a deleterious factor in conducting arable crops research. As now, environmental diversity will be achieved by conducting field experiments on farms in various parts of the country. Further, there will be opportunities for collaborative work with the two major arable crops institutes in the more eastern part of the country at Rothamsted experimental station and the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge.
The milder and moister climate at Long Ashton resulting from an annual rainfall of 35in compared with 26in at Begbroke may be looked upon as creating more challenging disease and aphid problems. Although the land at Long Ashton is not well suited to arable crops field experimentation, cereals are grown extensively not far away in the Cotswolds, and in due course additional land within reasonable working distance of the station will be sought.
I hope that it will be clear to hon. Members from what I have said that the council is fully committed to continuing research in weed science, albeit on a reduced scale, with the aim of securing savings of about £1·4 million in its arable crop protection programme. Although that reduction represents about 20 per cent. of the programme, I understand that the AFRC, following the reorganisation of its work, expects to continue the work commissioned by the Ministry and currently undertaken at the Weed Research Organisation.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making this debate possible. As I have said in the House, there are insufficient opportunities for it to debate science. This is the second occasion this Session when aspects of the affairs of the Agricultural and Food Research Council have been debated; there have also been two debates in another place, one being about more general scientific and technological matters. I welcome the increased public recognition which such debates give to science, and especially to the valuable work done in universities and the research councils.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Nine o'clock am.